Meanwhile, changing copy and making up quotes is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE at right-wing media like The Washington Times and UPI (both of which are owned and operated by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, btw).
I know you hate backing up your silly assertions, but do you have proof of any of this? I'm not saying this stuff doesn't exist either, I'm just saying that I've never heard of any of it and would like to bone up.
But please don't link to any of your conspiracy theory/nut job sites. Links to DU and other places will be ignored.
And you don't help your credibility by linking to one of the rabid ultra-far-right-wing smear campaigns against Dr. Krugman, either.
Where did I link to that? The only link in this post goes to the Times corrections page.
Don Myers
· 4 years ago
While I'm not going to defend the editorial board of the NYT, I have to point out one thing they did right.
They admitted the f**k up and retracted it within 24 hours. It's am isolated occurance, not a pattern.
Meanwhile, changing copy and making up quotes is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE at right-wing media like The Washington Times and UPI (both of which are owned and operated by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, btw).
And you don't help your credibility by linking to one of the rabid ultra-far-right-wing smear campaigns against Dr. Krugman, either.
Don Myers
· 4 years ago
And you don't help your credibility by linking to one of the rabid ultra-far-right-wing smear campaigns against Dr. Krugman, either.
Where did I link to that? The only link in this post goes to the Times corrections page.
OOPS! My error---I was commenting on a couple blogs simultaneously and mixed 'em up. Please ignore that part of the comment. My bad.
I know you hate backing up your silly assertions, but do you have proof of any of this? I'm not saying this stuff doesn't exist either, I'm just saying that I've never heard of any of it and would like to bone up.
But please don't link to any of your conspiracy theory/nut job sites. Links to DU and other places will be ignored.
From someone who consistantly links to Newsmax, GOPSUA, WorldNewsDaily, Fox, the Unification Church, et al, that statement is the very definition of hypocracy.
Don Myers
· 4 years ago
Rob:
Obviously your definition of "partisan" is "anybody who has said an unkind word about a Republican at some point." That allows you to ignore anyone who actually does their research while believing anything GOPUSA says with religious fervor.
The Southern Povery Law Center, "partisan?" The only people I've heard say that with a straight face are white suprematists and John Birchers. SHAME on you, Rob, shame on you.
JFH
· 4 years ago
Right, Don, and by non-profit status, the NAACP is ALSO a non-partisan organization.
holdfast
· 4 years ago
I followed a couple of those links - seemed more like shoddy reporting than deliberate hit jobs, but sometimes it is hard to tell the two apart. Still, not as bad as CBS or Tailwind. Kind of reminded me of other papers called "The Times" - like LA and NY, though.
Guess I'll just keep reading the Journal.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Prospect. Southern Poverty Law Center. Media Matters. And something called the "Daily Howler."
Partisan, every one.
I was hoping you'd come up with, you know, actual examples of the stuff you claimed, not just a bunch of hyperbole.
modern instances
· 4 years ago
The editorial is supportive of the war on terror but critical of the President for not doing enough to help with the recruiting problems our military has been facing.
You know what would give recruiting a great boost? Jenna or Barbara signing up at their local recruiting office.
JFH
· 4 years ago
You know what would give recruiting a great boost? Jenna or Barbara signing up at their local recruiting office.
And this would help, how? Oh, that's right, people aren't signing up because if the war isn't important enough for the President's kids to go to war, it's not important enough for "me" to sign up... Yeah, right!
modern instances
· 4 years ago
And this would help, how? Oh, that's right, people aren't signing up because if the war isn't important enough for the President's kids to go to war, it's not important enough for "me" to sign up... Yeah, right!
Just the opposite: if the war is important enough for the President's kids to go, then it's important enough for me to go. Here's a person of privilege who is sacrificing their luxuriant lifestyle to serve their country. The symbolism of the gesture would not be lost on the public.
Rob
· 4 years ago
So I'm a racist or a Bircher because I think the Southern Poverty Law Center has a left-wing agenda? Shame on you, Don, for making accusations like that.
And I think its hilarious how you accuse me of constantly linking to sites you define as being "partisan" (though, if you read through my posts you'd see that the articles I link the most are wire stories from the AP, Reuters and the like. Hardly right-wing partisan sources) but then turn around and get all huffy when somebody questions the fair-and-balanced nature of the sites you link to.
Talk about the pot and the kettle.
Don Myers
· 4 years ago
Sorry Rob:
I keep forgetting that you consider equality and civil rights part of the "left-wing agenda"---which, of course, they are. Thank you for reminding me.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Don Myers spits out, The Southern Povery Law Center, "partisan?" The only people I've heard say that with a straight face are white suprematists and John Birchers. SHAME on you, Rob, shame on you.
Always trying to play the race card = pathetic. In any regard, The Southern Poverty Law Center is Marxist in nature and endorses redistributionism.
I keep forgetting that you consider equality and civil rights part of the "left-wing agenda"--which, of course, they are. Thank you for reminding me.
"Equality" according to the left wing = "affirmative action" AKA institutionalized racism. Many more illuminating examples exist.
"Civil rights" according to the left wing = special rights and laws for special victim groups.
You're all confused Don. What's up is down and what is black is white in your world.
Analytical Liberal
· 4 years ago
Don Myers,
Keep preaching it out, but most on folks on this site practice the 3 Monkies method of political debate: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Or, said another way, "See only Bush/Rush/Fox, speak only Bush/Rush/Fox, hear only Bush/Rush/Fox."
The cognitive dissonance for them must be truly stupefying, because they sure do sound stupid when they fail to use their millions of brains cells -- I mean no disrespect, but the millions that poor Terri Schiavo lost -- to think independently and rationally.
By the way, staying on topic, anyone here besides Don and myself that remembers Carl Cameron? I didn't think so.
likwidshoe
· 4 years ago
Keep preaching it out, but most on folks on this site practice the 3 Monkies method of political debate: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
You know...if you actually brought us intelligent arguments for a change, maybe then you could talk this shit. So speak for yourself there "Analytical" Liberal.
Or, said another way, "See only Bush/Rush/Fox, speak only Bush/Rush/Fox, hear only Bush/Rush/Fox."
Huh? You don't even know us. You're just ASSuming.
The cognitive dissonance for them must be truly stupefying, because they sure do sound stupid when they fail to use their millions of brains cells -- I mean no disrespect, but the millions that poor Terri Schiavo lost -- to think independently and rationally.
Look at what you're writing here. Are you in high school? You have the maturity of a high schooler who lacks maturity.
By the way, staying on topic, anyone here besides Don and myself that remembers Carl Cameron? I didn't think so.
[...] Times Public Editor Byron Calame has an article today about a correction published by the paper last week regarding some wording wrongly inserted into an op/ed piece written by a reserve soldier called up to active duty (you can read about it here). In the article Mr. Calame explains how the error came to be in greater detail. In his explanation he alludes to the fact that the editor who was originally handling the piece went on vacation and that a subsequent editor made the mistake of discarding what was supposed to be the final version and keeping the one with the quotes that weren’t meant to be published. [...]
RANTING RIGHT WING HOWLER: WHA
· 3 years ago
[...] Ace of Spades has a correction posted by the NY Times and a right proper fisking of it, too.An editor took a piece written by a military member about to go on deployment and added quotes that were not the author's words.The Times apologized for having done so but you have to wonder, what right did they have to totally fictionalize that story. When you read the link above you'll see what I am referring to.Ace says:The language was added... with the intention of subsequently removing it? What? Who the hell puts fake quotes into an article with the idea that, just before the print run, they'll take them out?Do they think we're stupid? Are they claiming the editor/editrix just wanted to see how the false quotes looked in the article, the same as she'd try on a pair of shoes she had no real intention of buying?They inserted language intended to make the article more poignantly anti-Bush and their mistake was getting called on it by an angry writer.Note that you can juice up the language of a piece, but you cannot falsely attribute false emotions and false thoughts to a first-person narrative. That's the same as making up quotes and putting them into the mouth of the subject of a story-- here, the "subject" is the writer himself, and his feelings, thoughts, and words are his own "quotes."Did this New York Times editor not comprehend the difference?As Ace also said, you can be guaranteed this editor is still on the job, too, further cementing the idea that this is SOP for the NY Slimes.It goes to show that our MSM will do anything to try and make it appear as if our President is a bungler who cares not a whit about our soldiers.I just found more info on this. Please take the time to read Ace's update, then go read Say Anything's post. Also check out the NYT correction. A read of Say Anything's comments is interesting. Especially the first one who says this is an "isolated incident" at the Times! BWAH HA HA! That's rich!This is the sort of pervasive bias found in our crop of "journalists" and "editors" today who apparently have little shame in doing what they do. [...]
All Comments
Isolated occurance. Right. Gotcha.
I know you hate backing up your silly assertions, but do you have proof of any of this? I'm not saying this stuff doesn't exist either, I'm just saying that I've never heard of any of it and would like to bone up.
But please don't link to any of your conspiracy theory/nut job sites. Links to DU and other places will be ignored.
Where did I link to that? The only link in this post goes to the Times corrections page.
They admitted the f**k up and retracted it within 24 hours. It's am isolated occurance, not a pattern.
Meanwhile, changing copy and making up quotes is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE at right-wing media like The Washington Times and UPI (both of which are owned and operated by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, btw).
And you don't help your credibility by linking to one of the rabid ultra-far-right-wing smear campaigns against Dr. Krugman, either.
Where did I link to that? The only link in this post goes to the Times corrections page.
OOPS! My error---I was commenting on a couple blogs simultaneously and mixed 'em up. Please ignore that part of the comment. My bad.
I know you hate backing up your silly assertions, but do you have proof of any of this? I'm not saying this stuff doesn't exist either, I'm just saying that I've never heard of any of it and would like to bone up.
Dude, there's even a verb for it: "to prudenize."
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/8/borosage-r.html
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h111401_1.shtml
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=65
http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=The%20Washington%20Times
But please don't link to any of your conspiracy theory/nut job sites. Links to DU and other places will be ignored.
From someone who consistantly links to Newsmax, GOPSUA, WorldNewsDaily, Fox, the Unification Church, et al, that statement is the very definition of hypocracy.
Obviously your definition of "partisan" is "anybody who has said an unkind word about a Republican at some point." That allows you to ignore anyone who actually does their research while believing anything GOPUSA says with religious fervor.
The Southern Povery Law Center, "partisan?" The only people I've heard say that with a straight face are white suprematists and John Birchers. SHAME on you, Rob, shame on you.
Guess I'll just keep reading the Journal.
Partisan, every one.
I was hoping you'd come up with, you know, actual examples of the stuff you claimed, not just a bunch of hyperbole.
You know what would give recruiting a great boost? Jenna or Barbara signing up at their local recruiting office.
And this would help, how? Oh, that's right, people aren't signing up because if the war isn't important enough for the President's kids to go to war, it's not important enough for "me" to sign up... Yeah, right!
Just the opposite: if the war is important enough for the President's kids to go, then it's important enough for me to go. Here's a person of privilege who is sacrificing their luxuriant lifestyle to serve their country. The symbolism of the gesture would not be lost on the public.
And I think its hilarious how you accuse me of constantly linking to sites you define as being "partisan" (though, if you read through my posts you'd see that the articles I link the most are wire stories from the AP, Reuters and the like. Hardly right-wing partisan sources) but then turn around and get all huffy when somebody questions the fair-and-balanced nature of the sites you link to.
Talk about the pot and the kettle.
I keep forgetting that you consider equality and civil rights part of the "left-wing agenda"---which, of course, they are. Thank you for reminding me.
Always trying to play the race card = pathetic. In any regard, The Southern Poverty Law Center is Marxist in nature and endorses redistributionism.
I keep forgetting that you consider equality and civil rights part of the "left-wing agenda"--which, of course, they are. Thank you for reminding me.
"Equality" according to the left wing = "affirmative action" AKA institutionalized racism. Many more illuminating examples exist.
"Civil rights" according to the left wing = special rights and laws for special victim groups.
You're all confused Don. What's up is down and what is black is white in your world.
Keep preaching it out, but most on folks on this site practice the 3 Monkies method of political debate: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Or, said another way, "See only Bush/Rush/Fox, speak only Bush/Rush/Fox, hear only Bush/Rush/Fox."
The cognitive dissonance for them must be truly stupefying, because they sure do sound stupid when they fail to use their millions of brains cells -- I mean no disrespect, but the millions that poor Terri Schiavo lost -- to think independently and rationally.
By the way, staying on topic, anyone here besides Don and myself that remembers Carl Cameron? I didn't think so.
You know...if you actually brought us intelligent arguments for a change, maybe then you could talk this shit. So speak for yourself there "Analytical" Liberal.
Or, said another way, "See only Bush/Rush/Fox, speak only Bush/Rush/Fox, hear only Bush/Rush/Fox."
Huh? You don't even know us. You're just ASSuming.
The cognitive dissonance for them must be truly stupefying, because they sure do sound stupid when they fail to use their millions of brains cells -- I mean no disrespect, but the millions that poor Terri Schiavo lost -- to think independently and rationally.
Look at what you're writing here. Are you in high school? You have the maturity of a high schooler who lacks maturity.
By the way, staying on topic, anyone here besides Don and myself that remembers Carl Cameron? I didn't think so.
Who cares? Make your points troll.
The Times' Public Editor has an 'explanation' in today's times: 'When an Explanation Doesn't Explain Enough'. A fisking of the 'explanation' can be found at Oh, what a tangled web we weave...'
Porkopolis