'N.Y. Times' Correction Causes Other Papers that Ran Stories to Scramble f

[UpInArms]

http://209.11.49.220/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000519670

NEW YORK Many newspapers that have carried some or all of The New York Times' stories on Iraq that were cited for flaws in a critical editor's note Wednesday are scrambling to explain the paper's mea culpa to readers.

Since more than 300 newspapers nationwide subscribe to The New York Times News Service, the paper's revelation that at least six stories on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were problematic is being felt across the country.

Some editors appear miffed that they ran the Times' correction today in a prominent position while the Times itself stuck it in the lower left hand corner of Page A10, without even a front-page teaser.

"We ran two of the (Iraq) stories in question on Page One and we have run a lot of New York Times material," said Doug Clifton, editor of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland. His paper ran today's editors' note on Page 2. "We didn't want to be accused of sweeping it under the rug," he explained.

...more...

Wish these fools were so concerned about the results of the lies that they helped to pass off as they were about the "placement" of the apology :grr:

[Loonman]

1. NYT is a rag

They lost their credibility with me a while ago.


That would be the Jayson Blair scandal.

[aquart]

3. I stopped buying the Times when they lied about Clinton.

And I caught it.

[central scrutinizer]

32. birdcage liner

<>

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. What yuo are seeng is a full fledged

media revolt... that is a good thing, even if I read ALL mainstream
media with a grain of salt now

[Just Me]

9. A media revolt IS a good thing. I agree!!!! n/t

[AlCzervik]

4. Has Judith Miller admitted

to being a full on media whore yet? I swear she's a plant for Bushco spreading his propaganda.

[yellowcanine]

8. Actually she has, sort of. She saw her job as "reporting what the

administration thought about the presence of WMDs in Iraq." Sounds pretty slutty to me, but then, I am not an expert on sluttiness.

[salin]

10. But of course, she never reported that this is what she was doing

she always reported it as FACT.

[jpgray]

12. Worse, her primary source was Chalabi--and no corroboration!

She whored for this thing 24/7

[Wilber_Stool]

5. Fuck 'um

We don't need them anymore. It's just as easy for me to read the Guardian or the Sydney Morning Harald as their rag.

[RedSock]

7. Miller admits to being a whore (sorta)

"My job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence agency myself. My job is to tell readers of the New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal."

The New York Review of Books, February 26, 2004

***

She admits to being little more than a neo-con stenographer.

[calimary]

24. And you know what, Wilbur? You should LET 'EM KNOW THAT!

New York Times:

PAUL KRUGMAN! [e-mail]

To Write The Publisher or President: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#o

Letters to the Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#a

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to [e-mail] .

OP-ED/EDITORIAL
For information on Op-Ed submissions, call [phone] or send article to [e-mail]" target="_blank">[e-mail] . To write to the editorial page editor, send to [e-mail] .

NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail [e-mail] or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.
The Editors
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

The Newsroom
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Daniel Okrent, who represents the readers, e-mail [e-mail] or call [phone].

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
[e-mail] .

Janet L. Robinson, President & General Manager:
[e-mail] .
_________________________________________________________________

There's more, just in general (way beyond just the NY Times) in this ol' thread:

PLEASE NOTE MY SIG LINE – TO CALL YOUR REPS, TOLL FREE!!!

OR, TRY (877) – 762 – 8762. It’ll get you there, too! (Thank you, DUer redqueen!)


Please note, here, The World's Greatest Lists of Media Contacts – updated May 5, 2004– in the following thread:

LINK:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1533796#


IF THEY THINK WE DON’T CARE, THEY WON’T, EITHER!

This would let the NYTimes know that you are going elsewhere for your primary news, because their mindless, blind toadying for this criminal White House has fouled their nest. You regard them as having no journalistic credibility or honor any longer, but now see them as nothing but unquestioning shills for bush and the gop, mere shameless lapdogs when they SHOULD have been watchdogs. If you want rubber stamps, you can go to a craft store! You don't want or need it from an outfit like the NYTimes.

If they know they're losing readership, that means they're losing power, influence, and what's left of their reputation as "The Newspaper of Record" - which ultimately boils down to their advertising and subscription rates. It'll hit 'em in the pocketbook, as it should. Because that seems to be the only place that any of this activism makes any difference or has any lasting consequence or impact.

NO BOYCOTT IS TRULY EFFECTIVE IF THOSE WHO ARE BEING BOYCOTTED DO NOT KNOW ABOUT IT, AND/OR THE WHYs AND WHEREFOREs OF IT.

Furthermore, (AND THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT) if YOU write them (paper letter, snail mail, is BEST and has the biggest impact, but a phone call, fax or email is okay, too), they will be forced to assume that - if YOU are writing them, other people out there are thinking and doing the same thing. The way these things work, especially letters to the editor (why we all harp on this so much) is that - they view one letter of any type as being representative of MANY MORE who either didn't have time, or the motivation, or the concern, to write in about it, themselves. ONE letter can represent ten, 100, or thousands - especially to an entity with the prominence of the NYTimes. ONE letter may be picked from dozens of similar ones that come in, to reflect a trend in opinion. Hence, we had some little paper in Wisconsin or Minnesota or some place (I don't recall now where it was, but it wasn't that long ago and it was discussed at length here on DU) that put out an appeal to its readers because the editorial board suddenly realized they were getting HUGE numbers of letters critical of bush, and virtually none supporting him, and they issued an appeal to readers for more pro-bush letters if possible, because they were concerned that they couldn't be showing any "fair and balanced" letter-to-the-editor columns if all they had was anti-bush stuff. They later issued another one, saying they weren't trying to influence the nature of their letters to the editor, or slant the news or opinion section in any way (because evidently, the tone of their letters didn't change at all, or turn more toward bush - they only got more responses from angry readers defying their earlier request, and taking them to task for it).

[nolabels]

6. Yuck, yuck, yuck (really efffin funny)

Kiss en tell huh, well that don't mean much to our bankrupt government, the thousands of dead and 1.7 billion Muslims that think you support Bushco in the new crusade. Have you SOB's, have you any shame?

[grasswire]

11. one more time...

...when the NYT apologizes for

1. participating in the hunting of the Clintons
2. trashing Al Gore
3. Lying about the Florida recount

THEN I'll be impressed.

[calimary]

25. And you should tell them THAT, too!

I certainly see the legitimacy of that complaint. See post 24, above.

[central scrutinizer]

34. don't forget Wen Ho Lee

.

[Alerter_]

13. CNN covered up stories about Saddam Hussein for years

These media corporations have no loyalty to humanity or journalism. They have no problems covering up for dictators and murders - in or Iraq or the USA.

[NeoConsSuck]

14. As already stated..

the NY Times is a RAG.

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/nyt-o16.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/dec2001/walk-d22.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/dec2001/nyt-d10.shtml

The links above are just a few examples of a newspaper pretending to be impartial. It's a mouthpiece for NeoCon America.

[JoFerret]

16. All true etc.

However...relativity matters

[JoFerret]

15. Thank God for the NYTimes

......for leading the way in acknowledging its mistakes. If ONLY the BushCo administration had their moral sensibility. If only other news outlets were so willing to say they were wrong/ mistaken/in error/ misguided/ lied to/ gullible etc.

Imagine Fox or CNN or etc admitting this level of mistake. They lie as a matter of course. At least the NYTimes ASPIRES to something better.

Thank you NYTimes for admitting you were royally fooled. Now try to do better.

[struggle4progress]

17. But the Washington Post considers itself blameless ...

<snip>
Greenbelt, Md.: So the N.Y. Times has printed a lengthy mea culpa with corrections about their misleading coverage of the war on Iraq. Will we ever see the Post step up and do the same?
Dana Priest: well, no. We don't have anything to correct on the WMD case. If anything, The Post reporters were very aggressive on this, especially Walter Pincus. As I've vented before, the placement of the articles was not always as prominent as we would have like. Now, if you're talking about the editorial page, then I would say that they were much more willing to be convinced on the WMD case before the war. So ask Fred Hiatt this question next time he's on line.
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46358-2004May21.html

[UpInArms]

18. related article: Take deep breath, face facts on terror threat

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11807781&BRD=1675&PAG=461&dept_id=18168&rfi=6

Here’s one blunder by The New York Times that you may not have heard about -- if your primary source of news is right-wing talk radio. The Newspaper of Record published a lengthy "Editor’s Note" Wednesday largely repudiating key stories in its coverage leading up to the invasion of Iraq. And it wasn’t about stories that called the war unjustified. It was for stories that, it now seems, unjustifiably hyped the presence of weapons of mass destruction in that country.

That may come as a surprise to those who still believe that liberals control the press. But in the buildup to the war The Times, along with much of the rest of the media, all too often parroted the Bush administration’s assertions about Saddam Hussein and the threat that he posed to America. Critical questions went unasked and reporters’ natural cynicism was swept away in a cascade of propaganda.

The Times identified a key problem with its stories: "They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on ‘regime change’ in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing debate in recent weeks ..Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by U.S. officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations - in particular, this one."

The reason this is important is that The New York Times is not only one of the best newspapers in the world. It’s also one of the most important: It sets the agenda for much of the rest of the news business. Its stories are picked up by the network news and repeated by the wire services. Thus the tales about Iraq’s WMD programs were like pebbles dropped in a pond, spreading ripples of misinformation across the entire news spectrum.

That had an impact on public opinion. And so the country went to war based on a premise that, more than a year later, is still unconfirmed and looks increasingly unlikely. Almost everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein was and is a monster. But everyday Americans would have never supported the war solely on the grounds of "liberating" the Iraqi people.

...more...

[nolabels]

19. NEW YORK TIMES (i.e. asleep at the wheel)

People are way ahead of them, Check out this excerpt of the Goodman book

Online Exclusive...Fatal Error: Lies of The Times, Their Lies Took Lives

Wednesday, May 26th, 2004
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/1610213

By Amy Goodman and David Goodman

In our new book, The Exception To the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers and the Media That Love Them, we titled one chapter "The Lies of Our Times" to examine how The New York Times coverage on Iraq and its alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction helped lead the country to war. Today, The New York Times, for the first time, raised questions about its own coverage in an 1,100-word editor's note. Here is an excerpt from our section of the book on the New York Times and Iraq.

"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."
-- Andrew H. Card, White House Chief of Staff
speaking about the Iraq war P.R. campaign, September 6, 2002

In the midst of the buildup to war, a major scandal was unfolding at The New York Times-the paper that sets the news agenda for other media. The Times admitted that for several years a 27-year-old reporter named Jayson Blair had been conning his editors and falsifying stories. He had pretended to be places he hadn't been, fabricated quotes, and just plain lied in order to tell a sensational tale. For this, Blair was fired. But The Times went further: It ran a 7,000-word, five-page expose on the young reporter, laying bare his personal and professional escapades.

The Times said it had reached a low point in its 152-year history. I agreed. But not because of the Jayson Blair affair. It was The Times coverage of the Bush-Blair affair.

(snip)

[Kolesar]

20. we already have our Media Whore of the Year, Judith Miller

Too bad MWO is offline.

[comsymp]

22. Miller should be a shoo-in

but I'm still holding out for our good friend, Steno Sue Schmidt, to come roaring back into first place no later than the NY Convention.

Edit: CTFS

[UpInArms]

23. here's a bit from Newsday

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usmedi273820654may27,0,4532466.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism in Washington, D.C., said the Times had long defended its reporting despite complaints, especially about reporter Judith Miller's coverage indicating evidence of weapons of mass destruction had been found. "There was dissent not only outside the paper about this reportage but also inside the paper by other reporters in Iraq and in the intelligence beat at the time," he said.

[Kolesar]

21. Has anybody heard a retraction on NPR yet?

I must admit, I don't listen except for on my commutes.

[otohara]

26. NYT's Hides AL GORE Speech

I had to do a search on the site only to find a Reuters story.

Hearing Al Gore blast Bush for being DUPED by Chalabi must have hit close to home on the very day they issue their half assed apology.

[nolabels]

27. Here is a little wake up call for anyone that hasn't figured it out

An older link to be sure

AP has pulled all the coverage of Gore's speech
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=147357

[calimary]

28. Here's what I just sent "Editor and Publisher":

TO: Greg Mitchell, editor of "Editor and Publisher" [e-mail]

5/27/04

Dear Greg,

I've read with amusement the coverage in Editor & Publisher about the latest, and most egregious, failings of the New York Times.

Now that I've scraped myself off the floor and composed myself following some rather raucous guffawing, I'm more able to tell you that this is BEYOND high time that the Times came clean.

I retired from the Associated Press in 1996, still relatively proud to have spent more than two decades of my life in this previously honorable profession. At the time, other reporters and editors only seemed ferociously motivated to dig into every file and drawer of Bill Clinton, spurred on by an increasingly hateful and rabid right-wing cabal - mainly from increasingly powerful talk radio. But since, I have seen the quality of coverage and objectivity decline substantially. It appeared more and more as though whatever Republicans or conservatives said was taken at face value and promptly run with, while anything from Democrats or liberals (or even moderates) was either ignored, scoffed at, or given short shrift. What rare corrections of the record were usually buried on page 24 somewhere, amid lots of ads. Funny, that's what we now see of the New York Times (although I guess we should be grateful for SOME admission of guilt - their "The Times and Iraq" column got a promotion - all the way up to page 10 - wow!

I have been increasingly distressed, since the advent of the younger George Bush, that the coverage of anything about him has been so slight and so soft, and so unquestioning. There's enough room to launch a few dozen exposes and separate investigations of his White House by now. But did Judith Miller, for one, EVER seriously consider the input from respected voices such as Scott Ritter and Hans Blix, or ANY of those who could describe what was going on in ways that did not conform to the "inside dope" from her own personal "inside dope"?

If the Times is truly to come clean, along with other editors and reporters throughout the country who blindly and mutely accepted the free pass for Bush that relentlessly came from the New York Times, Miller must be either repudiated or fired, outright, for incompetence. Other reporters and editors, in all fairness, should fall on their swords in some way. The Times certainly had no trouble dealing as decisively with Jayson Blair, did it? Isn't this crisis worse?

I have been lamenting what I can only call GROSS DERELICTION OF DUTY by my former profession. By now, in fact, I'm actually embarrassed to admit I used to be a reporter - something in which I once took a great deal of pride. The reporting profession I grew up admiring and wanting to join has slapped me in the face in its headlong rush to curry favor and gain access from people who have steered America wrong and have served its citizens, voters, and soldiers, extremely poorly. The reporting profession I yearned to be part of, while watching what truths were unearthed - BY reporters - during Watergate, has turned from watchdog to lapdog.

This profession has broken its trust with the people. No wonder fewer and fewer people get their news from respectable newspapers, and now think yammering hyenas with unapologetic agendas are the best information brokers. No wonder more and more people like myself are turning to the Internet and to alternative and international media sources for the truth about our government (many people I know, including myself, now prefer the BBC and the UK Guardian as a primary source for news). No wonder a majority of Americans STILL believes that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. No wonder most people don't bother to vote, unless it's for the next "American Idol."

And by the way, assuming the New York Times (and, by extension, other reporters, editors, and newspapers across the country) "fully intend to continue our aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight" - can we then expect you all, in the interest of fairness and balance, to give the same free pass and lapdog treatment to the Kerry Administration? Or do you still plan to go easy only on Republicans?

Thanks for considering this. Sorry it's so long, but the offenses that provoked it are, unfortunately, even longer.

Sincerely,

(me)

[calimary]

29. By the way... more contact info for "Editor and Publisher" here:

AAAAA – EDITOR AND PUBLISHER CONTACT INFO – 5/27/04

CONTACT INFO FOR “EDITOR AND PUBLISHER”

Editor & Publisher
770 Broadway
New York, NY 10003-9595
Editorial Phone: [phone]
Editorial Fax: [phone]


Sid Holt
Editor-in-Chief

Greg Mitchell
Editor
[e-mail]

Shawn Moynihan
Managing Editor
[e-mail]

Carl Sullivan
Online Editor
[e-mail]

Mark Fitzgerald
Editor at Large (based in Chicago)
[e-mail]
[phone]

Dave Astor
Senior Editor (Syndicates)
[e-mail]

Jim Rosenberg
Senior Editor (Technology)
[e-mail]

Joe Strupp
Associate Editor (Newsroom)
[e-mail]

Todd Shields
Washington Editor
[e-mail]
[phone]

Reiko Matsuo
Art/Design Director
[e-mail]

Daniela DiMaggio
Photo Editor
[e-mail]

[Kolesar]

30. Wow. Great letter! ......... eom

[calimary]

31. Thanks!

[UpInArms]

33. well said calimary!

:yourock:

[calimary]

35. Thanks to you, too!

[calimary]

36. HEY! I got a reply!

thanks for great letter, will consider it more fully if I ever get a minute.... GM

Just arrived in my email inbox.

Well, who knows, 'eh?

[Kolesar]

38. the editor called it a "great letter". That is super

You got a real human response.

[Tight_rope]

37. With great respect! "Thank You"!

There's not much more to say other than "Thank You"!