Shocker

4:54 pm EST October 20th, 2008 | Media | 13 Comments

NY Post has to remove story attacking Obamas because it was made up. Keith Olbermann is familiar with the NY Post’s tactics on this.

Topic: ,

Related Posts

«
»

13 Responses to “Shocker”

  1. Duros Hussein 62 says:
    October 20, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    Was mccann or william pushing this the other day?

    I’m shocked – SHOCKED, I tell you, that Page 6 would make something up. Especially in that bastion of truthiness, the NY Post.

  2. z_adura says:
    October 20, 2008 at 5:28 pm

    The next 15 days are likely to be among the ugliest in American politics. The main reason of course is that most of the scumicons – Rush, Hannity, Savage and their hoard – can’t imagine that America is giving in to the great dark menace. What a great time to be an American.

  3. Jay says:
    October 20, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Considering that bastion of journalistic excellence, the NY Times has had to retract several false stories about Sarah Palin that was published in the actual NEWS section of their paper, I don’t see how a gossip item is all that much of a big deal.

  4. Quaker in a Basement says:
    October 20, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    Considering that bastion of journalistic excellence, the NY Times has had to retract several false stories about Sarah Palin that was published in the actual NEWS section of their paper,

    Was there an actual retraction on any of those? I mean retraction in the sense of “the reporter got the facts wrong”? Or did they just publish a follow up story?

    I’m thinking of the AIP story. Are you thinking of something different?

  5. Oliver Willis says:
    October 20, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    I’m no apologist for the NY Times, but I think its safe to say their accuracy rate is far better than the NY Post.

  6. daniel rotter says:
    October 20, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    “Was mccann or william pushing this the other day”?

    It was william.

    “..I don’t see how a gossip item is all that much of a big deal”.

    Like you’d be saying the same thing if the FALSE (I noticed you conveniently omitted that word) gossip item revolved around a Republican.

  7. PG says:
    October 20, 2008 at 8:55 pm

    The New York Times has had credible sources on EVERYTHING they have published about Palin. To my recollection, only one correction has had to be made: when the Alaskan Independence Party stated that Gov. Palin had been a member, the NYTimes reported that they had said so (using named sources, an innovation the NYPost might try), and then when the AIP said oops, we meant TODD Palin, the Times reported that correction.

    In contrast, the NY Post just blanks out the page. Stalin would be proud.

  8. daniel rotter says:
    October 20, 2008 at 10:55 pm

    Jay probably prefers more unbiased fare like The Fox “News” Channel or the Washington Times.

  9. jr says:
    October 20, 2008 at 11:02 pm

    “Andy Martin is awesome”-NY Post

  10. Parthenon says:
    October 21, 2008 at 12:15 am

    I’m no apologist for the NY Times, but I think its safe to say their accuracy rate is far better than the NY Post.

    Why do they need an apologist, outside of the melodramatic conservative accusations? Did they heinously blow something I don’t know about?

  11. Oliver Willis says:
    October 21, 2008 at 3:10 am

    Did they heinously blow something I don’t know about?

    Well…

    “Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller’s series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped the New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war. How the very same talents that caused her to get the story also caused her to get it wrong.”

  12. Randy Brown says:
    October 21, 2008 at 5:19 am

    “Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller [...]“

    …who is now a contributor to Fox “News.”

    ‘Nuff said.

  13. Parthenon says:
    October 21, 2008 at 10:48 am

    Well…

    Well yeah. I suppose I was thinking more recently.

    (scuffin’ my foot in the dirt…)