I would like to apologize for posting a NY Post article yesterday...

[Gravitycollapse]

It was supposedly an expose on potential fraud during the 2012 election cycle that generated false unemployment numbers by the Census.

Not being very knowledgeable of print journalism, I am only in my early 20s, I mistakenly assumed the NY Post was a reputable source. I have now learned it is a tabloid paper owned by Rupert Murdoch.

If I had known that, I would not have posted the story.

Again, my deepest apologies.

[2naSalit]

1. Worse things have happened

I'm thinking that most will get over it, including you. I already have.

[Le Taz Hot]

2. One of the nice things about DU?

It's largely self-correcting. If you'll notice that every reply, save 1, disputed what the story claimed. If anyone's been on DU for more than 45 minutes, we've had our cyber asses kicked into reality by better-knowing DUers at some time or another. It's uncomfortable for a minute, but ultimately, you learn from the experience, move on and "sin no more" so to speak.

[Union Scribe]

18. Excellent response.

It gets us to a place where we're far more picky with sources and reporting. If everyone had a few thousand fact-checkers like DU, the nation would be a lot less gullible when it comes to the media.

[tavalon]

24. So true and I've found, as this poster has,

that is best to admit the error and apologize and move on to the next oops. We all do them. They turn stupid when we fight about them. We have a right to our own personal opinion but not to our own personal facts, I heard a longtermer say.

[Tx4obama]

3. Update: A comment from WH PressSec from Jay Carney...

Carney: NY Post Report On Faked 2012 Jobs Numbers 'Misleading'

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/carney-ny-post-story-on-faked-jobs-numbers-misleading

[babylonsister]

4. Join the club.

When I first started posting here many moons ago, I posted a Krauthammer article; I wasn't that familiar with the google or anything else.
Well! I got lambasted up, down, and sideways. It was a good lesson.

[bhikkhu]

5. I did read that. As in many such things, the content was much less than the headline

...as they talked about one individual in one office who apparently falsified completed job surveys. Without any apparent agenda but to seem to to be working very productively, while actually more or less failing at the job. My thought was that a person doing so, wishing to not be caught, would likely try to falsify surveys in a believable way - which is to say, to be skewed in neither direction.

The headline was obviously designed as a RW talking point, and they didn't even try to justify it with argument in the text. I imagine the writers have pretty dim expectations of their audience's reading comprehension.


...on edit, a couple of years ago I remember being in an argument here on some economic issue or other, and hurriedly rounding up some quotes and a graphic from an article supporting my position. I didn't realize until it was pointed out that I was using the Heritage Foundation as my back-up, and there were really no other sources I could find that agreed with me! Needless to say, re-thinking and apologies followed. Sometimes its good to find out you're wrong, as that's when you are most likely to learn something new.

[Curmudgeoness]

7. Sadly, they know that few read beyond the headlines.

Too often, I find the most revealing pieces in the last paragraph of a story.....where few venture.

[fadedrose]

20. ++++

Hi, haven't seen you around much...

[Curmudgeoness]

38. Hi, fadedrose.

I've been here most every day for a few minutes to hours. Some times, I just read and don't have much to say, and there are days when I am full of questions or opinions.

Good to see you. Hope that everything is going well for you. At this point in time, things are well here.....who knows about tomorrow but I will cherish these positive times.

[MarianJack]

6. S'OK, Gravitycollapse, now...

...c'mere & give us a hug!

PEACE!

[fadedrose]

21. ++++++

[marble falls]

8. Every once in a while the Post actually prints a good story with researched information. But you ...

might get old waiting for it.

[grantcart]

9. live and learn

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

10. Shit, I knew the Post was a rag when I was 11

Boston Herald too.

[brush]

27. Guess those not from the northeast aren't familiar with the NY Post

It's the biggest rag in the newspaper business.

The only redeeming feature of the NY Post are it's brilliant front page headline writers (have to give 'em their props on this as the writers have to get across a distinct, precise idea/word picture in a very limited character count).

Here's the greatest of them all:

"HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR"

(Google the rest)

This came out if the 80's I believe. I worked at Newsday at the time, a competing paper, and we all admired their front page headline writers' perverse brilliance even though we knew the rest of the paper was right wing, raggy crappola.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

33. My brother worked at a library in the 80's when he was in high school

At the end of the night, they let him bring home the papers we didn't already get (Our house always got the Boston Globe, The Providence Journal and the Fall River Herald). I recall the entire Bernie Goetz saga, the Eigel Dag Vesti case, all sorts of transvestite, AIDS, and kinky sex crime out of NYC you could imagine because of the Post. But my parents made sure I knew it was all crap.

Today, I wouldn't even read the Post if I was handed it for free. I do like the Daily News however.

[EC]

11. Good that you are learning those things

while you are young. Now spread the knowledge.

[pnwmom]

12. No need to apologize! We're all happy to talk to anyone who cares.

And it isn't always easy to know which sources are reliable.

The NYTimes has misled us more than once . . . .

[MannyGoldstein]

13. It would be helpful if DU had a guide to sources.

Which are bad, which tend to be OK.

[Kablooie]

14. That sounds like a good idea.

But it should list the left wing unreliable sources as well as the right.
Too often I read left wing news that doesn't present a complete argument and I have formed opinions that I wouldn't have if I had all the facts.

I now try not to voice a serious opinion until I research the subjects myself and feel that I understand more of the underlying issues.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Perhaps.

There might be some significant differences of opinions on the Left sources.

[Kablooie]

17. Often they present a particular point of view and that's fine.

But there also have been cases where the info is designed to be inflammatory, like the RW screeds, and not to allow informed opinions.

It's not nearly as prevalent as on the right of course, but I feel let down whenever I come across this kind of manipulation.

[fadedrose]

22. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[nolabear]

15. Oh that's just part of the hazing. Has taterguy called you a dumbass yet?

[Union Scribe]

19. We learn best by erring :) nt

[libdem4life]

23. Posting can be hazardous to preconceived notions of the old folks, too, but you learn a lot more

and a hell of a lot faster. Carry on.

[eridani]

25. If something from a source like that just catches your eye--

--Google it. If there's something to it, it should appear in more than a few reputable sources.

[Fumesucker]

26. ...

I know you probably won't get this but I can't help myself.

[Wilms]

28. Murdoch isn't such a bad guy. Is he?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

36. Seems gratuitous of you to take this opportunity to bash Hillary

Which is the obvious intent. I hope she's elected as our 45th president because she'll do a remarkable job but I will also delight in the gnashing of teeth on both the right and the left should this happen.

[Wilms]

37. It's a PSA.

Informational purposes, and stuff.

[Cleita]

29. I learned to look at the source both for the paper and the journalist

who wrote the piece. I have seen lying garbage in reputable newspapers that slipped by an editor.
Fortunately, today with Google and other search engines it's easy enough to trace a journalist back to a RWing think tank and the website at most news organizations tell who is behind them. The tab is usually labeled something like "About Us".

[Coyotl]

30. kick

[OilemFirchen]

31. FTR, I apologize for my post on the thread.

It was deservedly hidden.

That said, it's not just the source, but the content. That was a seriously fucked up pile of "journalism" which didn't deserve the light of day anywhere, unless as a target for derision.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. Was the story correct or was it bullshit?

I frankly think it's kind of lazy to use "the source" as a proxy for arguing about the points. Granted, articles from anything Murdoch tend to be easier to discredit on their merits than other sources, and should probably merit a power up on critical reading skill, but I'm not a big fan of rejecting arguments entirely based on the source used.

[cthulu2016]

35. That is a good point. (In this instance, the story was outlandishly fake.)

[Pretzel_Warrior]

34. Bahahahaha!