July 27, 2005
Gray Lady Down

You'd think with all the money the NY Times has, they'd at least be able to get facts straight:

Every once in a while you see a correction in a newspaper that doesn't quite do justice to the magnitude of the error committed--one where the correction really should say that the article in question never should have been written. This morning's New York Times corrections section offers an example
In order to understand the magnitude of the Times' error, you have to read the original article. As noted, it was published on Sunday, when the Times' circulation is by far the highest. The "fact" that the Times has now corrected was the entire substance of the article.

The Washington Post just can't be that much better than the NY Times... I guess there just aren't as many people fact-checking them.

Now, what was that about journalists being a lot better than bloggers again?

Via Countercolumn

Posted by scott at July 27, 2005 10:22 AM

eMail this entry!

no, no, no - fact-checking is someone else's job.

Mind you, I do think this happens both ways - both conservative and liberal. The more and more I look at this and hear about stories like this (Jordangate, Rathergate, some of the stuff that happened to Clinton, etc.), the more I think it isn't just media bias causing these problems (though it's definitely contributing), it's plain stupidity, laziness, and plain old incompetence in many instances. Of course, that's why there are editors - to remove the nonsense.

Now - are the editors doing their job? It doesn't appear so...

Posted by: ronaprhys on July 27, 2005 11:25 AM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?