More Palin urban legend dousing: New York Times caught with its Big Foot in its mouth
Courtesy of John McCormack at the Weekly Standard blog:
In an article on the response of conservatives to the media coverage of Sarah Palin, Politico‘s Jonathan Martin examines the “time-honored and strategic effort by Republicans” to “blame the media”. One example of the McCain campaign’s strategy:
Tuesday, the campaign ratcheted up the criticism, singling out New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller for her reporting on whether McCain sufficiently vetted Palin.
“Ms. Bumiller, if you’d like to try reporting instead of writing fiction, here’s a link to our press line,†campaign blogger Michael Goldfarb wrote, snarkily offering a phone number to the campaign headquarters.
Martin does not point out that the Times had to issue a retraction of Bumiller’s report that Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party for two years. In a piece examining the “strategic” element of the McCain campaign’s media crticism, is it fair to leave out the instances in which the media have reported false information about Palin? Such as the claim that Palin was a Pat Buchanan supporter? Or the Washington Post report that “Palin Slashed Funds For Teen Moms“, when in fact she increased funding by $3.9 million rather than $5 million?
Francis, the “retraction” did not even appear on the corrections page. Apparently it was in a little box at the bottom of page 18.
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080903132840.aspx
The smear was a front page story.
How often do corrections/retractions appear on the front page? Is what the Times did in printing the correction inconsistent with past practices? If so, there’s a story. If not, not so much.
When will the Times cover John Edwards’ love child?
“When will the Times cover John Edwards’ love child?”
When Sarah Palin’s the mother.
[...] bookmarks tagged york More Palin urban legend dousing: New York Times ca… saved by 4 others HappyGrulz bookmarked on 09/03/08 | [...]
“When will the Times cover John Edwards’ love child?”
Isn’t this getting a little old? They have, of course:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/us/politics/09edwards.html
“…when in fact she increased funding by $3.9 million rather than $5 million…”
Well, sort of. As far as I can understand, Covenant House requested a $5 million state grant for a one-time building project. That request was included in the proposed state budget. Palin reduced the amount to $3.9 million. So it’s really a little of both–Palin did authorize a grant, but less than they requested. “Slashed” their budget, though? No.
“Isn’t this getting a little old? They have, of course.”
About 9 months too late. Remember, the original NE story was published in 2007!
“Remember, the original NE story was published in 2007!”
Well, I’m sure you’re equally eager for the MSM to pick up and run with their latest revelation:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/03/politics/fromtheroad/entry4413030.shtml
…but then, I guess it’s hard to get too excited when there’s so much else to cover, like George and Laura’s impending divorce, Katy’s rescue from the clutches of the Scientologists and Nicholas Cage’s refusal to sleep in his $3.5 million haunted mansion.
Uh-oh. As of this morning, it looks like it’s all over with Palin:
“The National Enquirer’s coverage of a vicious war within Sarah Palin’s extended family includes several newsworthy revelations, including the resulting incredible charge of an affair plus details of family strife when the Governor’s daughter revealed her pregnancy. Following our John Edwards’ exclusives, our political reporting has obviously proven to be more detail-oriented than the McCain campaign’s vetting process. Despite the McCain camp’s attempts to control press coverage they find unfavorable, The Enquirer will continue to pursue news on both sides of the political spectrum.”
Grover, I’ll be the U. S. President to your Dr. Evil (ala Austin Powers). Maybe they should have asked for a gizillion gabillion dollars, and then one could say that she slashed it a gizllion gabillon dollars.
BTW, if I ask for a 20% raise and get a 15% raise, I didn’t get a 5% pay cut.
If I intend to kill 5 moose and I wind up with only 4, I didn’t lose one moose.
BTW, being accused of committing adultery is not the same as actually committing it. You can, of course, commit adultery in your heart, to quote Our Lord. But someone else can’t commit adultery your heart. Apparently, money’s not enough, you liberals actually intend to redistribute sin.
Francis, if you’re going to demand accuracy from the “other side” then be accurate yourself. If you asked Baylor for a specific grant amount for the ISR, and they agreed to a grant but cut the amount in half, it would certainly be true that you got an increase in funding, but it would be equally true that your expected funding was “cut” by a certain amount.
As for adultery, my only point was that even the Enquirer can, like a stopped clock, be right twice a day, and given their journalist track record you can hardly blame the MSM for being leery of their “revelations.” You’d better hope with all your heart that the Enquirer is wrong this time around.
Grover:
Your analogy is flawed, since the government grant in question was not offered than retracted. It was requested by the recipient and the recipient received less than requested. IN my case, if I asked for a 100,000 grant and received 50,000, it would be wrong to say that my grant was slashed by 50,000. However, if I was offered 100,000 and the ISR capriciously cut it to 50,000, you can say my grant was cut. But until an offer is made and accepted, there is no grant per se.
Again, if Covenant House and asked for 5 billion dollars only got 39 million, you would say that the Gov. to nearly 5 billion dollars away from Covenant House.
It’s like the line–”the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing”–for it tells us nothing. After all, in Cuba there is no gap between rich and poor, everyone is poor. Moreover, if we defined poor as 20,000 a year and rich as 200,000 and the poor’s income increased the next year by 20% and the rich’s increased by 10%, the gap would increase, but the poor would be better off. Which means that the gap argument is a way to nurture envy rather than administer justice.
These sorts of statistical battles are mind-numbingly useless. The reason: they don’t tell us anything at all about what’s just or right.
For how much longer will the New York Times prints its papers with the delusion it is a legitimate news source rather than an inch thick editorial?