Comments on: Shocker

By: Parthenon

Parthenon — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:48:51 +0000

Well…

Well yeah. I suppose I was thinking more recently.

(scuffin’ my foot in the dirt…)

By: Randy Brown

Randy Brown — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:19:20 +0000

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

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

‘Nuff said.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:10:39 +0000

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."

By: Parthenon

Parthenon — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 05:15:35 +0000

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?

By: jr

jr — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 04:02:12 +0000

“Andy Martin is awesome”-NY Post

By: daniel rotter

daniel rotter — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:55:56 +0000

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

By: PG

PG — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:55:53 +0000

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.

By: daniel rotter

daniel rotter — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:44:29 +0000

“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.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:17:55 +0000

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.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:02:30 +0000

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?

By: Jay

Jay — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:52:18 +0000

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.

By: z_adura

z_adura — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:28:53 +0000

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.

By: Duros Hussein 62

Duros Hussein 62 — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:17:41 +0000

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.