View Full Version : New York Times Admits Error
The New York Times admits it erred in the publishing of the slanderous ad depicting General Petraeus as a liar and traitor. #It also admits MoveOn should not have gotten the dollar break it got.
The New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad.
NYT - On Second Thought (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297745,00.html)
Seems to me the NYT is always second guessing itself after the fact and oh well, since we already did it, too bad. Will an apology follow?
K2WH
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Sep. 23 2007,14:42)]The New York Times admits it erred in the publishing of the slanderous ad depicting General Petraeus as a liar and traitor. It also admits MoveOn should not have gotten the dollar break it got.
The New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad.
NYT - On Second Thought (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297745,00.html)
Seems to me the NYT is always second guessing itself after the fact and oh well, since we already did it, too bad. Will an apology follow?
K2WH
From the NY Times Article Fox is Reporting On:
Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:blue'>The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.</span>
(bottom of page)
The Times is admitting error? NO they're not.
As usual, Fox doesn't have a clue as to how a real news organization operates. Also, as usual. someone posts something without reading it.
What have we learned from this? Always get it from the source.
Will an apology from Fox follow now that they have made yet another "NEWS" mistake? Amazingly, all Fox had to do was read the article they wrote about. I'm not holding my breath.
w2amr
09-23-2007, 06:57 PM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Sep. 23 2007,11:49)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Sep. 23 2007,14:42)]The New York Times admits it erred in the publishing of the slanderous ad depicting General Petraeus as a liar and traitor. #It also admits MoveOn should not have gotten the dollar break it got.
The New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad.
NYT - On Second Thought (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297745,00.html)
Seems to me the NYT is always second guessing itself after the fact and oh well, since we already did it, too bad. #Will an apology follow?
K2WH
From the NY Times Article Fox is Reporting On:
Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:blue'>The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.</span>
The Times is admitting error? #NO they're not.
As usual, Fox doesn't have a clue as to how a real news organization operates. #Also, as usual. someone posts something without reading it. #
What have we learned from this? #Always get it from the source.
Will an apology from Fox follow now that they have made yet another "NEWS" mistake? #I'm not holding my breath.
The reporting seems a bit confusing. By design, perhaps?
Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Sep. 23 2007,14:57)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Sep. 23 2007,11:49)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Sep. 23 2007,14:42)]The New York Times admits it erred in the publishing of the slanderous ad depicting General Petraeus as a liar and traitor. It also admits MoveOn should not have gotten the dollar break it got.
The New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad.
NYT - On Second Thought (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297745,00.html)
Seems to me the NYT is always second guessing itself after the fact and oh well, since we already did it, too bad. Will an apology follow?
K2WH
From the NY Times Article Fox is Reporting On:
Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:blue'>The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.</span>
The Times is admitting error? NO they're not.
As usual, Fox doesn't have a clue as to how a real news organization operates. Also, as usual. someone posts something without reading it.
What have we learned from this? Always get it from the source.
Will an apology from Fox follow now that they have made yet another "NEWS" mistake? I'm not holding my breath.
The reporting seems a bit confusing. By design, perhaps?
In the article they do admit they charged too little for the ad since MoveOn got to choose the placement date. When it came to the ad itself:
Quote[/b] ]“If we’re going to err, it’s better to err on the side of more political dialogue. ... Perhaps we did err in this case. If we did, we erred with the intent of giving greater voice to people.”
OTOH, what Fox didn't write and of course WH didn't know (or perhaps didn't mention), is that Rudy demanded and got the same rate in his attack on Hillary Clinton.
Quote[/b] ]In the fallout from the ad, Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor and a Republican presidential candidate, demanded space in the following Friday’s Times to answer MoveOn.org. He got it — and at the same $64,575 rate that MoveOn.org paid.
Like a good reporter (and this is more proof Fox has none), it always pays to go to the source and find out what they really said. Problem is this is an Opinion piece and that's why the disclaimer at the bottom.
Unlike this case, it should also be noted that I've never heard anybody who works at Fox disagree with anything Fox has done. And if they had, they probably wouldn't be working at Fox for long.
w2amr
09-23-2007, 10:03 PM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Sep. 23 2007,14:49)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Sep. 23 2007,14:57)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Sep. 23 2007,11:49)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Sep. 23 2007,14:42)]The New York Times admits it erred in the publishing of the slanderous ad depicting General Petraeus as a liar and traitor. #It also admits MoveOn should not have gotten the dollar break it got.
The New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad.
NYT - On Second Thought (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297745,00.html)
Seems to me the NYT is always second guessing itself after the fact and oh well, since we already did it, too bad. #Will an apology follow?
K2WH
From the NY Times Article Fox is Reporting On:
Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:blue'>The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.</span>
The Times is admitting error? #NO they're not.
As usual, Fox doesn't have a clue as to how a real news organization operates. #Also, as usual. someone posts something without reading it. #
What have we learned from this? #Always get it from the source.
Will an apology from Fox follow now that they have made yet another "NEWS" mistake? #I'm not holding my breath.
The reporting seems a bit confusing. By design, perhaps?
In the article they do admit they charged too little for the ad since MoveOn got to choose the placement date. #When it came to the ad itself:
Quote[/b] ]“If we’re going to err, it’s better to err on the side of more political dialogue. ... Perhaps we did err in this case. If we did, we erred with the intent of giving greater voice to people.”
OTOH, what Fox didn't write and of course WH didn't know (or perhaps didn't mention), is that Rudy demanded and got the same rate in his attack on Hillary Clinton.
Quote[/b] ]In the fallout from the ad, Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor and a Republican presidential candidate, demanded space in the following Friday’s Times to answer MoveOn.org. He got it — and at the same $64,575 rate that MoveOn.org paid.
Like a good reporter (and this is more proof Fox has none), it always pays to go to the source and find out what they really said. #Problem is this is an Opinion piece and that's why the disclaimer at the bottom.
Unlike this case, it should also be noted that I've never heard anybody who works at Fox disagree with anything Fox has done. #And if they had, they probably wouldn't be working at Fox for long.
Just like the bush administration http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Sep. 23 2007,07:49)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Sep. 23 2007,14:42)]The New York Times admits it erred in the publishing of the slanderous ad depicting General Petraeus as a liar and traitor. #It also admits MoveOn should not have gotten the dollar break it got.
The New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad.
NYT - On Second Thought (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297745,00.html)
Seems to me the NYT is always second guessing itself after the fact and oh well, since we already did it, too bad. #Will an apology follow?
K2WH
From the NY Times Article Fox is Reporting On:
Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:blue'>The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.</span>
(bottom of page)
The Times is admitting error? #NO they're not.
As usual, Fox doesn't have a clue as to how a real news organization operates. #Also, as usual. someone posts something without reading it. #
What have we learned from this? #Always get it from the source.
Will an apology from Fox follow now that they have made yet another "NEWS" mistake? #Amazingly, all Fox had to do was read the article they wrote about. #I'm not holding my breath.
See the difference is perception. The Times does admit and error in placing the ad since it goes contrary to internal standards at the times.
You perceive Fox as lower than whale sh_t and I see the Times as a communist rag.
K2WH
To each his own. You gotta move out of NY and see the real America.
n6hcm
09-24-2007, 03:03 AM
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Sep. 23 2007,17:26)]See the difference is perception. The Times does admit and error in placing the ad since it goes contrary to internal standards at the times.
you seem to have missed the point.
- it's an opinion piece written by an individual representing his own point of view. the nytimes hasn't admitted to anything
- as in most businesses, stated policies govern routine action--management always gets to make the final call (although usually they don't have to) and exceptions happen all the time.
KD6NIG
09-24-2007, 03:12 AM
The simple facts are....
They've apologized. Big whoop. Took them, how long?
Damage is already done as intended. Nobody will care about the apology now.
They accomplished what they intended to http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
w2amr
09-24-2007, 08:13 AM
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Sep. 23 2007,17:26)]To each his own. #You gotta move out of NY and see the real America.
And you have to start looking beyond fox noise to get your news.
n2ize
09-24-2007, 08:20 AM
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Sep. 23 2007,17:26)][quote=n2nh,Sep. 23 2007,07:49][quote=K2WH,Sep. 23 2007,14:42]The New York Times admits it erred in the publishing of the slanderous ad depicting General Petraeus as a liar and traitor. #It also admits MoveOn should not have gotten the dollar break it got.
[
The Times did not charge less just because they are moveon.org. Sorry, the "commie giving a discount to a fellow commie" nonsense is a fantasy of right wing talk show hacks. The cost of any given ad depends on numerous factors such as the day or days the ad is to appear, whether it is a specified day or an arbitrary day, and many other factors. moveon,org was charged the same rate that anyone else wopuld have been charged under the prevailent conditions.
Quote[/b] ]
You perceive Fox as lower than whale sh_t and I see the Times as a communist rag.
K2WH
To each his own. You gotta move out of NY and see the real America.
If you can in all seriousness sit there and claim that the Times is a "communist" paper then YOU are the one that needs to get out a bit more. Are you really that blinded by right wing talk show lunacy ? If you think the Times is communist than I doubt you know what "communism" is, or what "liberalism" is or what "conservatism" is for that matter.
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Sep. 23 2007,20:26)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Sep. 23 2007,07:49)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Sep. 23 2007,14:42)]The New York Times admits it erred in the publishing of the slanderous ad depicting General Petraeus as a liar and traitor. It also admits MoveOn should not have gotten the dollar break it got.
The New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad.
NYT - On Second Thought (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297745,00.html)
Seems to me the NYT is always second guessing itself after the fact and oh well, since we already did it, too bad. Will an apology follow?
K2WH
From the NY Times Article Fox is Reporting On:
Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:blue'>The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.</span>
(bottom of page)
The Times is admitting error? NO they're not.
As usual, Fox doesn't have a clue as to how a real news organization operates. Also, as usual. someone posts something without reading it.
What have we learned from this? Always get it from the source.
Will an apology from Fox follow now that they have made yet another "NEWS" mistake? Amazingly, all Fox had to do was read the article they wrote about. I'm not holding my breath.
See the difference is perception. The Times does admit and error in placing the ad since it goes contrary to internal standards at the times.
You perceive Fox as lower than whale sh_t and I see the Times as a communist rag.
K2WH
To each his own. You gotta move out of NY and see the real America.
Maybe we should just let NY secede and see how long the "real America" lasts?
Fox quoted an Opinion piece as news. As usual, they don't know the difference between fact and fiction.
Read the disclaimer at the end. I make it a little bigger so you can see it:
Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own.</span></span>
I don't see Fox as lower than whale dung, they're much lower than that. They're fascist TV and so far they've proven me right. OTOH, they did charge MoveOn the wrong (a lower) rate for their services. They charged Rudy the lower rate too.
MoveOn is now paying the full rate. WILL RUDY DO THE SAME NOW? (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/moveon-to-pay-full-times-ad-rate/#more-2529)
*POOF!* Your dead horse is gone.
We need to hear from Pinch, the little weasel.
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/09/what_did_pinch_know_and_when_d.html)
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Sep. 23 2007,19:26)]To each his own. You gotta move out of NY and see the real America.
New Jersey? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
http://i19.tinypic.com/4kehsf6.jpg
http://i16.tinypic.com/62hv1ud.jpg
kg6amw
09-24-2007, 02:09 PM
The years of crisis at the paper --from Jayson Blair to Howell Raines to repeatedly publishing national security secrets to Times Select and crashing advertising revenues-- suggest nothing but simple incompetence fortified by intellectual exhaustion. It is a mess, but nothing will change until the falling profits drain the once great institution of all its defenders. The stock of the company closed at $19.81 on Friday. Five years ago it was above $50 a share. How much longer will shareholders allow ideology and incompetence to destroy the value of their investment?
Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ Sep. 24 2007,10:07)]...The stock of the company closed at $19.81 on Friday. Five years ago it was above $50 a share. How much longer will shareholders allow ideology and incompetence to destroy the value of their investment?
Yep, the NY Times is Dead. And Murdoch is going to buy the corpse for some $BILLIONS$ too. (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nytimes13aug13,1,3773523.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=2&cset=true)
http://i9.tinypic.com/2mcaqkk.gif
w2amr
09-24-2007, 08:55 PM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Sep. 24 2007,04:58)]http://i19.tinypic.com/4kehsf6.jpg
http://i16.tinypic.com/62hv1ud.jpg
If it says what he wants to hear.............