"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
A test of basic journalistic integrity
Why doesn't anybody seem to care that The New York Times isn't telling the truth about the Clintons?
On March 18, 1994, The New York Times published an article by Jeff Gerth that falsely reported that, during Bill Clinton's tenure as governor of Arkansas, Tyson Foods "benefited from a variety of state actions, including $9 million in government loans."
Tyson's "primary outside lawyer," according to the Times, was James Blair, a close Clinton friend who was involved in Hillary Clinton's commodities trading. The clear implication of the article was that, as a result of Blair's personal and financial relationship with the Clintons, his client, Tyson, benefited from favorable state actions.
But Tyson did not, in fact, receive $9 million in government loans. It took The New York Times a month to acknowledge this, but they finally did so, in an April 20, 1994 correction.
In May of this year, Media Matters for America discovered that the March 18, 1994, article is available on the Times' website, still containing the false claim about the government loans. We posted an item noting this, adding that the false claim also appeared in two subsequent Times articles and an editorial, all of which were available, uncorrected, on the Times' website. We also pointed out that the articles and editorial were available on the Nexis database without corrections appended. A correction subsequently appeared on the Nexis version of the March 18 article, but not the others.
On August 10 of this year, I noted that the March 18 article still appeared, uncorrected, on the Times' website.
Now, nearly a month later, all three articles and the editorial are still available, without correction, on the Times' website. All but the March 18 article are still available, without correction, on Nexis.
In four different places, a visitor to the Times' website can read that Tyson benefited from $9 million in government loans while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. It isn't true, and The New York Times has admitted it isn't true, yet they leave the false claim on their site, without appending a correction, even after it has been publicly brought to their attention multiple times.
This is really very simple: if The New York Times cares about the truth at all, they'll append a correction to these three articles and this editorial.
It should take about three minutes to do so, tops. It requires no new admission of error; the Times has already acknowledged getting this fact wrong. It requires writing no new text; they can just use the correction they have already used.* It requires no new policy about appending corrections to old articles: The March 30, 1994 article already includes a correction of a different inaccuracy appended to the end of the article.
There is simply no good reason why the Times cannot append the corrections immediately. And it couldn't possibly be easier for the Times to do so. If they continue to fail to add the correction, it will be impossible to conclude anything other than that they are knowingly and intentionally spreading falsehoods about the Clintons.
Thirteen years after the Times first printed the falsehood about Tyson and the Clintons, the falsehood itself may not matter all that much. Countless official investigations of the Clintons' finances came and went without a single charge being filed against them. Endless media coverage (from the same news organizations that completely ignored evidence that George W. Bush benefited from illegal insider trading) likewise failed to uncover financial misdeeds.
Given that, it matters not a whit to the Clintons' reputations whether these articles are corrected. What is at stake is The New York Times' reputation.
As I wrote in August:
Nobody expects reporters to be perfect. Nobody demands that news organizations never get anything wrong. But until news organizations adopt as one of their core values the notion that errors must be promptly and thoroughly corrected, they will continue to lose the trust of the American people.
And they will deserve to lose it.
* * *
* Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, who have done exemplary work cataloguing and debunking a wide range of flawed reporting relating to the Clintons' finances, have noted that the correction the Times ran was itself misleading. The correction, in what reads as an attempt to save face, said that Tyson "did benefit from at least $7 million in state tax credits, according to a Tyson spokesman" -- but according to Conason and Lyons, those credits were, in fact, "investment incentives available to every corporation." This criticism is compelling, but at this point, we'll take the flawed correction over none at all. Back to column.
That Corporate Media monster continues to dominate our attention, even when we recognize the lies. We really need to roll back to 1975, the FCC maximums on an owner's saturation/reach in media outlets and content creation; and then get really serious about undoing the destructive effect on public discourse wrought by that current Oligopoly and their Repugnant offspring.
Sounds good to me Conley.
Conason and Lyons have certainly done yeoman's service for us regarding the Clintons in their superbly researched and detailed books. The New York Times could learn from them, as could anyone who still likes to maintain certain falsehoods about them. If the NYT is the best we liberals have, God help us.
Wait a second. MMFA is criticizing (Bill would say "attacking") The New York Times? I think I just heard Bill O'Reilly's head explode.
welcome back from that journey to mars you were on. they criticize the n y times constantly, including this last tuesday and wednsday.
You appear to have a rare and unique ability to completely miss the point I am making. As a longtime MMFA regular -- I was contributing my fact-based opinions here long before you made an appearance here -- I know that MMFA has criticized the NYT. I was suggesting (humorously, I thought) that, in light of his recent comments, this fact might be news to Bill O'Reilly.
actually, i've been posting here for over two and a half years. i guess i didn't read it well enough, but i'm sure o'reilly knows this site criticizes the times.
i think perhaps where we are not seeing eye to eye is that you were more willing to assume that he makes the statements he makes because he just doesn't know the facts. i think he full knows what this site does and says, he seems obsessed with it, and his comments about this site and the times are just meant to appeal to his base of listeners. a sort of two for one shot at the "liberal media". sorry on my part for any misunderstanding.
This topic doesn't once mention that Prez Billy "BJ" Clinton was impeached and disgraced and had his law license taken away by the DC courts.
How biased!
(According to the MMFA rules you have to include negative stuff in ALL articles about any politician. Oh, wait, is that rule ONLY for conservatives?)
who doesn't know those things? or the fact that someone like you is on here every two minutes pointing it out?
The blow job story got plenty of play torres. It was well covered and cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
This story isnt about your favorite pasttime, sniffing Clintons zipper. It's about the NYT false assertion in an editorial that they still provide access to, and other stories have cited.
Conversely, the same TIMES used false stories Judy Miller scribed, that led us into Bushs war in Iraq. They got those stories wrong, too.
So let's see what the left has to complain about with the NYT.
A - an old story in the archives that had some incorrect reporting on Billy "BJ" Clinton
B- one single reporter who years ago trusted some information she got from an anti-Saddam source.
Ignore the constant anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war reporting at the NYT for the past several years.
Honestly, you guys are truly the most whiny little crybabies in the world. And that is no exaggeration. The NYT gives the left a free ride on most issues most of the time and it's still not good enough for you guys.
>>Ignore the constant anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war reporting at the NYT for the past several years.
Really? And you believe this because?
Like I said, what can we expect from you, John, a person who actually believes Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
Like I said, what can we expect from you, John, a person who actually believes Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
Really? And you believe this because?
Do you really think the Clintons murdered Vince Foster?
Really?????
I hope that Hsu is not silenced before he can tell his story. People who get involved with the Clinton crime family often end up dead. Johnrtorres638 / Saturday September 1, 2007 12:15:25 PM ESTj
I didn't state anything about Foster or for that matter even suggest that the CCF ever "murdered" anyone.
No, of course not! What exactly did you mean, then.
Please!
There are lots of people, such as James McDougal who simply had some health issues and died of natural causes. Some people, such as Foster, had mental issues and ended up committing suicide. Ron Brown had a plane accident.
In any event, they were involved with the Clintons and now they are dead for many various and sundry reasons.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Various AND sundry?!? Dude, you just totally blew my mind. Have you ever watched Clinton's testimony over and over...ON WEED? It's so trippy man. He starts to look like Jabba the Hut. I'm not saying he IS Jabba the Hut, there are just various and sundry reasons that I...Man did you take the Doritoes?
everyone the bush family knows....get ready for the shocker.....will someday die. is that what you meant about the clintons?
sure - but many of the Clintons friends seem to be pretty "unlucky"
no doubt bumped off by the "crime family"?
If you genuinely meant that these were accidents or health problems, then unlucky shouldn't be in quotes.
But then, anyone with a room-temperature IQ should be able to figure that out. If you're really that stupid, my apologies. If you aren't, then you're obviously trolling.
Unlucky is in quotes - obviously, the use of quotes is to underscore the irony of its exaggerated use.
For example, when I say that "Ron Brown, etc. are 'unlucky' " ... the context is that they died of various reasons.
It does not imply that they were murdered.
That's not how quotes are used. Learn how to use the English language, or quit lying.
if that were true then you would simply use the word unlucky with no quotes. but as you admit, the quotes show irony, which is a standard rule for use of quotes. therefore, you owe an explanation of the irony you intended.
>>I hope that Hsu is not silenced before he can tell his story. People who get involved with the Clinton crime family often end up dead.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Read what you posted. You wrote that Hsu would be silenced, that Clinton was a crime family, and that people associated with this crime family end up dead.
That means murder. Words have meaning in context. Your excuse is what linugusits call a linguistic lie.
>>Your excuse is what linugusits call a linguistic lie.
Oh, is that what linguists call it? Well, that sounds very impressive.
I simply was making a straight forward point - I never mentioned Foster and I never said "murder"... I'm not sure that a person has to go to grad school to "deconstruct" plain English.
No, one doesn't have to go to grad school. One simply has to be a native speaker of normal intelligence to take language in context. You mentioned someone being silenced, a crimed family, and people ending up dead around that crime family.
Those are your words. So apparently, you believe in the crazy conspiracy theories in which Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
That, of course, is merely your inference.
I think that most conspiracy theories (such as that wacko "October Surprise" and JFK assassination theories) are pretty lame.
My saying you believe in the Vince Foster conspiracy theory is an inference.
But you clearly do believe that Clintons have people murdered. That is not my inference. That is what you wrote.
I said:
That, of course, is merely your inference.
- johnrtorres638 / Saturday September 8, 2007 10:52:04 PM EST My saying you believe in the Vince Foster conspiracy theory is an inference.<!-- new --> -
funnymanpants / Saturday September 8, 2007 10:55:08 PM EST
---------------------------------------------
So we are agreed that you made an inference - but that is not what I meant to imply.
I have no idea what your last sentence means.
You think Clinton murders people. That is what you wrote in your original post. You may not have meant Vince Foster (but please!), but you certainly meant people.
No, I did NOT mean that Clinton personally goes out and murders people. This is something that only conspiracy wackos charge.
You still haven't provided a good explanation for what you did mean. Your explanation earlier is simply dishonest. No one talks about crimed families, people being silenced, and enemies ending up dead, and only meaning people die of natural causes, as you implausibly asserted.
By the way, you are a troll. You keep asserting (right now) that the leftists and liberals believe in the same point as Osama Bin Laden.
You just love to post inflamatory posts with no content.
"How wasteful it is to lose one's mind...how true that is." --Dan Quayle
And honestly you are the stupidest poster I have ever seen. Anti Iraq war WHAT. The NYTimes was a MAJOR cheerleader of this war. Between your ignorance and your complete inability to recognize clear reality you are completely worthless
Easy,
You said "It was well covered and cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars."
Torres, please remember that those you want to defend spent just about $44 million on demanding details of the infidelity of Bill Clinton .......
These same patriotic Americans spent less than $5 million looking into the why's and who's of 9/11 (and they fought the creation of this until the public outcry was to much for them to bear.)
And you want to try to defend these people?
Yeah John you totally nailed that one! It's totally unfair how everyone ignored Clinton's blow job story. I think I read about it in Harpers months after the impeachment or something. Otherwise I would've missed it entirely. Spot on observation dude. My bong is cracked, do you have any of those strawberry flavored rolling papers left? When will the media finally give Republicans their due?
It's called the Lunzt/Thompson rule.
John, you should retire that comedy skit. It's like fish and out of town company, after 3 days it begins to stink.
JOHNTORRES:
In case you aren't just spoofing (trolling), and are really confused about many things, here's some help.
You say, "This topic doesn't once mention that Prez Billy "BJ" Clinton was impeached and disgraced and had his law license taken away by the DC courts."
RESPONSE: First, "Impeached" has NOTHING to do with the topic here, alleged "quid pro quo" with Tyson foods ... which is INCORRECT information which is perpetuated by a major media outlet. Second, any "Impeached" mention should be followed by "and EXONERATED", since Clinton was found NOT GUILTY on ALL CHARGES, which then became FALSE CHARGES themselves (i.e. political smears advanced by the GOP). Third, "disgraced" is your emotional interpretation, which is countered by Clinton's current popularity which is far greater than the current president's (which makes rightwingers furious). Finally, your own MISINFORMATION: "had his law license taken away by the DC courts." This is FALSE. Clinton's license was SUSPENDED (for five years, long lapsed) by the Arkansas bar. Clinton could practice law today if he wanted, he just makes lots more money other ways (which ALSO makes rightwingers furious).
You say, "How biased!"
RESPONSE: You have been corrected on this misconception.
You say, "(According to the MMFA rules you have to include negative stuff in ALL articles about any politician. Oh, wait, is that rule ONLY for conservatives?)"
RESPONSE: That "rule" concerns the singing of the praises of a politician in an area where that politician has a CONFIRMED record in that area which calls into question the praise. A fully informed public should have a FULL picture of each politician's record to make decisions about their competence/character, rather than relying on BIASED praise which overlooks or omits evidence which contradicts the picture painted by a current article.
Hope this helps you keep from making an ass of yourself, Torres. And thanks for being a MMFA regular!
Billy "BJ" Clinton "exonerated"?
Clinton found in civil contempt for Jones testimony
<!-- date -->
April 12, 1999 Web posted at: 7:24 p.m. EDT (2324 GMT)
<!-- /date -->WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 12) -- U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.
-------------------------------------------
TRANSITION IN WASHINGTON: THE PRESIDENT; Exiting Job, Clinton Accepts Immunity DealFor the first time, the president explicitly admitted that ''certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false,'' when he gave a deposition in January 1998 in the Paula Jones sexual misconduct case. [Text, Page A20.]
Mr. Clinton also agreed to pay a fine of $25,000 to the Arkansas Bar Association, which had been considering whether to have him disbarred, and also promised not to seek reimbursement of any legal fees from a federal court -- something he would be entitled to do under the independent counsel law as someone investigated but not indicted.
===========================
Billy copped a plea to avoid going to the slammer. (Not the first time he "copped" something while in office, I might add)
----------------------------------------------
But more to the point - you can stretch ANY news story to go into the negative past of any politician. The difference is that I recognize that a paper cannot always go into all the negative stuff in every story when they are trying to cover a topic. MMFA has this idiotic notion that "fairness" in the media requires that every time they interview GWB (or any other conservative) the reporter must stand on his chair and start yelling LIAR LIAR LIAR.
The liberal reporters would probably like to, but they would look like idiots after a while.
he copped a plea? with Ray? no sir, Ray did not even charge clinton with any criminal activity. thats some plea, eh? The OIC are not in the business of spending 70 million dollars of taxpayer money, only to let criminals go free without bringing a single solitary charge. Again, the OIC brought absolutely no charges against Clinton.
The civil contempt is nothing one can be tossed in the "slammer" on in my estimation, but perhaps a lawyer can enlighten us.
Torres, your team of zipper sniffers spent 70 million dollars to find a blue dress....and thats all you got, bud. Fiske, Starr, and Ray exonerated Clinton on the initial Whitewater inquiry, and did not file ONE SINGLE SOLITARY CHARGE. Starr lost almost all of his jury trials, and even those were not focused on Clinton.
Independent Counsels dont drop drop charges if they have evidence of a crime...they seek to convict....as they did with LIBBY....
The guy is trolling like a pair of Rush Limbaugh's fetid, soiled underpants come to life and he is rewarded with an actual argument about the Lewinsky case? Damn, someone must be feeling pretty charitable tonight. Is it your birthday johntorres? It must feel like a dream come true. And it's perfect timing with the acid just kicking in! Yours has gotta be because we dropped at the same time and I'm soaring like an Eagle of Freedom! Mission Accomplished dude! Freedom's on the march in my eyeballs! Yeeeeaaargh! Seriously man, I love partying with you. You say the freakiest things. I barely need drugs when you're near me.
JOHNTORRES:
I hope you have copies of those news reports on Bill Clinton's "civil contempt" for attempting to keep a private affair ... WHICH WAS NOBODY'S BUSINESS ... private.
The GOP was not to be denied their panty sniffing, so expended enormous effort and millions of taxpayer dollars to finally find out, yes, Bill Clinton did get a hummer. And the judge, well, she figured Bill Clinton had been too clever in his answers in a case that was brought fraudulently (and was later thrown out of court), and she hit him with a fine. Big effing deal.
As to "exonerated", it is exactly as I claimed: found NOT GUILTY on all the charges brought by the Articles of Impeachment. The GOP had zilch.
If you take those clippings with you to the john, john, it might give you the fantasy impetus to have a successful session of self abuse. Other than that, it's all old, and very boring, "news", and your obsessive revisiting to the notion that Clinton "did something wrong" only reveals your shallow, mean-spirited, and petty mindset, which is ultimately impotence.
While PITY is suggested for your condition, I'm reminded of the vicious, cut-throat manner in which you rightwingers do your business, and the urge to pity soon fades. You deserve every pang of your anguish.
*** WARNING *** Attachment Deleted...
I think that a lot of MSM editors must be using some sort of protection software (similar to Norton, etc.) that prevents accidental publication of stories infected with BJI (basic journalistic integrity).
I've listened to the likes of O'Reilly, and have read blogs and posts like yours, blustering about Media Matters's purported lack of "integrity" -- journalistic and otherwise -- but I have yet to see ANY of these "critics" point to a single word that's been inaccurate or erroneous in any way.
It seems that the only thing that "critics" like you and the rest can't stand more than the truth are facts that you can't readily distort by heaping on more lies to cover the ones you've already been caught telling. Sorry, pal; MMFA's calling your bluff and you and your Regressive cohorts can't stand it.
Any lawyers out there? Just what is the legal burden of proof at this point for a publication on this level? People get sued for libel, how does something like this not get pursued? Would the person being slandered have to bring the lawsuit themsleves?
Has anyone ever heard of a case where there was a class action suit against a publisher for being misinformed? Isn't that a wild idea? Could you imagine the fear it would put into publishers if that were possible? I know, nightmare scenario, I'm not really into society through lawsuit whenever it can be avoided. But if the public is so complacent, who exactly is going to protect us from misinformation? I can't accept the bs line, 'Well, people get what they deserve,' because that means me and my people too. And it's not like the Constitution and the Courts never addressed protecting the needs of minorities against the tyranny of the majority. What about the tyranny of stupidity? Can we no longer comprehend of the inherent paradoxes in Democracy? We've seen it with FOX that we can have the most popular publisher in a particular medium be completely corrupt in their agenda. It would be one thing if they said, "Giving you the Right side of the story!" or something like that, but "Fair and Balanced," is demonstrably a lie. I'm just rambling here but I've spent a few hours studying constitutional law and I understand precedents and how they evolve. I'd just like to hear what a lawyer in this particular field has to say about the possibility of legal action against, well, liars. Or, as is more likely, some fellow geek with a couple of good links.
I'm not sure if that class action thing was clear. But when a corporation puts out a product that hurts a group of people, they have recourse throught the courts to hold the company accountable. Would it be impossible for a group of Americans to show that a news corporation knowingly disseminated false information that caused them harm? I know the pitfalls are endless, but it would be kind of a fascinating scenario, even just as a way to bring attention to this problem.
I'd sign on to supply a name on the suit, if that would help!
I would seriously love the opportunity to cost those b******s a bunch of bucks in legal fees, and - WOW! - we might even win, or something!
The signees would probably have to be people who could show actual damages as a result of false information disseminated by the network/publisher. I mean has this never been done? Like NEWS9 in Bumbletown USA does a report about the deliciousness of drinking from the local creek. (This didn't really happen. I know it sounds VERY realistic) Three thousand people get giardia. Seems like NEWS9 is going to have some dues to pay right? So if there are cases like this on the books somewhere, doesn't that mean there is SOME level of precedent to at least get a case in court? These sound like rhetorical questions but I really don't know.
Sundog, I have been enjoying your posts quite a lot. I like that phrase "tyranny of stupidity". It's very apt. John Melloncamp was on Bill maher's show last Friday and said the people of the heartland were naive. Yeah, that's a euphemism if I ever heard one. Thanks to the naive for bringing us Bush and company and the subversion of democracy. I still can't answer your question though. I think there's a really high almost impossible standard when it comes to suing newspapers, etc.. That's all I have to offer.
Thanks JJ that's sweet of you to say. I like hearing your voice too and it's really nice to be appreciated. I understand what you say about the standard being very high for suing a newspaper. Like I said, I know there are endless pitfalls because I can see why the standard NEEDS to be so high. The press needs to roam wild and free, but the irony is that now the powerful are using that very thing against the free. And the way they were able to create a reality and steamroll over any opposing voice to start this war was seriously a traumatic thing. And I didn't even have to go over there and have my legs blown off!
The thing is, I wrote for a (small) paper for a while and knew that I had to be careful as hell not to mess with anyone's world by saying something false so as not to be sued for libel. I was writing for about 3000 people and it seems like I was legally held to a much higher standard than someone writing to 3 million. So, I find myself wondering, is there really a sacred standard that we're protecting or is it just a matter of company's with enough dough being able to buy enough legal cover to slander people all they want?
It's important for the rightwing to be able to call their political enemies, like the Clintons, "corrupt", and then cite articles by the "Liberal" New York Times as the source.
The New York Times, for their part, have to assist in this important function, by putting forth FALSE and damaging information ... SMEARS ... which then live forever on "the record".
The first and most blatant example of this trend was when the New York Times reported on the "Consortium Report" by FALSELY headlining that Bush "would have won anyway". The article itself provided the proof that the only way Bush could be shown to WIN is if substantial numbers of legal and valid votes were ignored. When all legal and valid votes were counted ... by EVERY and ANY standard ... Gore won. The article stated this clearly, albeit way down in the closing paragraphs.
The media ... almost ALL media ... has a bias, and it is RIGHTWING BIAS, and this includes the New York Times. This is arguably worse than FOX News, which everybody knows is biased rightwing, because the NYT lends their "credibility" to lying for the right, even as Colin Powell lent HIS credibility to lying for Bush.
An almost "throw away" point in this wonderful commentary struck me the most... "Endless media coverage (from the same news organizations that completely ignored evidence that George W. Bush benefited from illegal insider trading)... " How critics of the liberally-biased media can continue to believe it, faced with this reality boggles the mind!
They believe it because they don't just get their information from the easiest sources of media, they get their sense of reality that way too. There were four US soldiers killed in Anbar shortly after Bush manufactured his headlines there. Since his visit was ostensibly to demonstrate our 'success' there, it seems that these deaths are a serious rebuke of his stunt. What if instead of reporting these deaths on page 23 of my newspaper Four More Killed in Anbar was the front page headline on every paper in the country? I'm not necessarily making the case that it should have been, I'm just creating an example. This would have been a simple choice of the publishers, but I guarantee all these people you refer to would have an entirely different sense of what is important right now.
Jimmy Carter's presidency was brought down largely by a media campaign that lasted throughout the Hostage Crisis. They did a count on the news every night: DAY 165 of the Hostage Crisis. They created a painful narrative that everyone lived through giving a real urgency to the situation that wouldn't have existed if it had been reported another way. None of those people died and yet AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE was felt more intimately by many than these actual deaths that have been rolling in daily now for years. They really do have a stragnlehold on the overall media message in our era.
If the publishers had chosen, media outlets could have made this war impossible for them to launch. They were able to make baldly false claims without being challenged. Instead I saw each of the three major cable 'news' channels feature the same knuckle dragging country singer, "Don't yew remember 9-11?" with flags waving behind him in a clear emotional appeal to support the war as a response to 9-11. Their culpability in this cannot be denied. And it's not just a matter of counting the number of rightwing commentators vs moderate and liberal. As a publisher you have an almost unlimited range of creative possibilties to suggest to people just what they should be worrying about.
Waaah, someone said something negative about the Clintons! Waaaah! Let's cry all the way to the nearest fundraiser for those war criminal baby-bombing Clintons. You just got to worship their blood-drenched feet! They's Democrats! All Democrats is Holy....even when they vote to drop bombs on children for corporate profits, right? I'm sick of people crawling up the collective Clinton arse when both of them have screwed this country over, sold us out to Wall Street, bombed foreign children, and still have the nerve to wave their blood-stained hands at us and smile. Two mass murderers and you're down kissing their feet....really nice behaviour from so-called liberals. When Hillary becomes president and blows up a few hundred or thousand more children and lies to our faces about it, just like they all do, just like her husband did... will MMFA still be defending her from the press?
We can all save this country, very simply...STOP SUPPORTING KILLERS!
This article was about worshipping the Clintons?
Redkind maybe off meds. Pity, had some good posts this week. Who waved Hillary in his face?
Redking deals in mass hyperbole. He gives "greens" a bad name. Maybe they're all like that. Makes me never want to join if so. He has made the oh so bold assertion that Gore wouldn't have been any better than Bush. So there you go.
Ah yes, the Useless Left. The Pure Ones who don't sully themselves.
Yeah, better to vote for people with track records of mass murder. It shows one's intelligence to vote for those who drop bombs on babies for corporate campaign donations and military contracts. It's the height of political maturity to vote for those who fund and commit war crimes. I guess us Useless Lefties stood in the way of the Pinochets, Francos, and Hitlers of this world in vain, eh? better to vote for the criminals than stand against them, right?
Please, your rhetoric hurts rather than helps.
Well Redking, Bush and this war and possibly 9-11 could have been stopped back in 2000 but almost every self-righteous clown I knew was too proud to vote for Gore because they'd been far more manipulated by right wing propaganda than they'll ever admit. And don't ya just feel so clean making the protest vote? Thanks a lot for that. They WANT you in the street with a cardboard sign. Gore was the greenest guy to ever get that close to the office and you got suckered into pissing into the wind. Again, thanks a lot. I've really been enjoying the Bush years and so have all the dead folks and people with their limbs blown off because of these criminals. So go stick your self-righteous garbage.....ok, I'll calm down. Y'all love the platitudes and stuff. Try this one. Voting for the lesser evil could either be looked at as voting for some evil or it could be looked at as voting for less evil. Many lives could have been saved by keeping these people out of office. Do you think the corporatistas would have rather had Gore running around making movies or occupying the White House. Maybe try to look at what you can do to tip the actual balance of power in positive directions when we can rather than screaming self-righteous, useless banter into the wind so you can feel like your so Pure. I know I sound ticked, but you tick me off. (I have a lot of friends whirling around the same drain you are so that's why it sounds personal.) But over all, no kidding, Peace. -SD
I've always been mystified by: The "Right's" attacksagainst the Clintons; and The "Left's" reflexive defense of them. Clinton's agenda was Xeroxed directly from a neo-con wish list. Eight years of bombing and embargo against Iraq resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, many of them children in hospitals with no clean water, medical supplies or way to sterilize instruments. NAFTA, which he championed, resulted in thousands of well paying factory jobs being shifted to maquiladoras across the border, at the same time pushing small Mexican farmers off their land, unable to compete with US mega farms. The WTO, which he also championed, did the same thing on a global scale. His half-hearted pretence of attempting health care reform probably set the cause back by a decade. He sent billions to defense contractors to build systems of no use in the 21st century, to defend us against threats that don't exist.
BJs in the Oval Office were probably the most virtuous things he did in there.
But he's a Democrat! He must be worshipped! Didn't you get the Party Sheep memo, typed in the blood of Serbian and Iraqi children? We must worship Herr Clinton....he has the holy D behind his name!
Democrats are just as blindly, religiously loyal to their party as the Republicans. If a Democrat commits mass murder, they will defend them. If a Dem and a Repub commit the same mass murder, they will try to exonerate the Democrat while blaming the Republican. They are quite criminally insane, too.
Why should this be removed? You are dealing with an archived document, not a contemporary text. We would, and have gotten mad at the federal government when they remove or alter documents. In fact i think i remember MMFA complaining about conservative sites that have removed, or altered previous information found on their perspective sites. I wonder if the famous Dewey wins page dealing with the 1948 election still might be found, uncorrected. In any case, going back to my original comment this is an archived document dealing with the original text and should be understood as such.
C'mon stepper, you're analogy is false. I think the we can all agree that the Dewey headline has a funny and actually significant place in history. It might even be argued that an archived copy of it wouldn't necessarily need to be amended because it's a well-established piece of history. What we've seen in recent years with the NYTimes has been pretty different. First, the Right has employed an intense campaign to portray the Times as being 'liberally biased.' One clever effect of this is that guys like Cheney can and have then quoted the Times to prove their own points because "Gosh if the Times agrees with the Bush administration on something, it must be true! That's BOTH sides of the story!" Nice illusion huh? Especially when they have at times fed misinformation to the paper which they have then quoted back to the public as proof of their veracity. We're you not aware of these events when you made your post? So with people quoting old articles of the Times to proove sometimes false points, can you see the need to at least put ammendments on these articles pointing out the false information?
Your analogy. I've GOT to start reading these things before hitting the button.
Sundog, maybe i should have added that i have my masters degree in library science, and have studied archiving practices. The goals, and standards, of the field are based on avoiding altering or removing information, but rather storing them as they were orginally created. This does mean that erroneous information is kept. However, this information is considered as historically rather than textually of interest. Meaning future historians can use the debunked information to write about how the media behaved rather than dealing purely with secondary sources.
I understand your point stepper. But I still maintain that it's a false analogy. I mean we haven't really had any problems with people making the claim that Dewey won the election based on that headline. But we have had a problem with people quoting erronious information printed as news in this very publication. I don't see how adding an ammendment onto an article with false information sullies the historic record. In fact, when this publication is currently used to make politcal arguments, there might even be some burden of journalistic integrity involved in doing just that. Unless we have someone trying to make political arguments now by citing events from the Dewey Administration, I think your analogy appears pretty aggressive.
That aside, you do have much more experience in this than I do. So I'm curious what your take was on a book that was almost released before the 2000 election. I can't even remember the name of it now. It was a tell-all type of history of the early years of W. Bush. They found a legal reason why something in it was false and managed to block its publication. This included literally destroying just about every copy printed. This was a pretty impressive example of purging the world of a publication. I'm wondering if you know anything about that case. Thanks -SD
I see no reason why this article could not have an addendum stating the correction. The correction would be dated and people would see the original article and date. No fancy explanation necessary.
An addendum, not an ammendment. That does make more sense actually. Don't tell me you have a masters degree in library science too!
First, within the field our core approach isthe preservation of information. This means the protection of material that is already published, and in some type of collection either in print or electronic. Secondly, while we focused more on existing documents the idea that material is prevented from being published would also be anathema because of the focus on access found within the field. So while you could not remember the text, the librarian would support the publication process.
Fortunate Son? That might have been the name of it, or was that one that actually DID make it to the shelves? Anyway, I just remember that it was a pretty impressive job of destruction that I couldn't remember any precedent for. (At least in America) I should just look it up. I'm always trying to make other people do my research for me.
Back to the original post though; I do understand your point about the historic record. I just didn't see where MM was advocating taking something OUT of the record. It seems they are asking that this not be allowed to sit on the shelves unchallenged as reported fact because it's the type of information being used now in the public arena.
Ok, I got it. It WAS Fortunate Son. Apparently it was recalled for a time, pulled from shelves and 100,000 copies were "burned." The source I found put the burned in quotes. I don't know exactly what that means except that they were apparently destroyed. Eventually it was released again and is still available. It seems like a pretty harsh indictment of Bush's pre-politician character in that it, you know, describes him. Just as with many who have tried to report about Bush's past in any detail the GOP has relied on the personal problems of the author to dismiss the actual content of the book. This was the account that brought the question into the 2000 campaign, "Did you use cocaine?" Bush answered about as satisfactorily as Clinton's asinine "I didn't inhale" but for some strange reason it didn't seem to trouble his worshippers.
There is an excerpt from the book in which an old Texas associate mentions that the Governor never seemed to be very forgiving about 'youthful indiscretions' except where he himself is concerned. But the author himself had drug problems so apparently that's all the Bushies needed to feel a ok about their Hypocrite in Chief.
It is clear that the mainstream press rolled over for BushCo for years, including the New York Times. While some journalists now regret their cheerleading role, the damage has been done and isn't easily repaired.
And the unwillingness of the NYT to correct a factual error on their web site makes one wonder if there are editors working there who WANT misinformation to stand. Certainly there are enough errors of omission to scream about...
We should all get riled up that the press isn't working hard enough to highlight the working men and women of this country and their issues. Not a R or D issue, it's all of us!
It is all of us. But it's sort of an R and D issue in the sense that the 'mistakes' that are made overwhelmingly tend to help the R create the impressions they want and win elections starting very clearly with Reagan protecting us from the 'Bear.' It's hard for me to take the R and D out of it when the R seem bent on strangling the middle class, subverting the Constitution and imposing theocracy while the D seem kind of ok but imperfect and totally screwed by what seems to be an agenda by the mainstream media.
Sorry. I don't like being partisan at all. It's against my nature. But the balance of power in our society has gotten so that this guy johntorres is better represented in government than I.
I agree. That's why I signed on with the D's now...from the I's (and much earlier, the R's)
The right wing in this country has deliberately skewed the media away from facts. There are so many ways this is done, from blatant to subtle...and the stories never reported, or only half told go on and on.
The point I was trying to make is that this hurts everybody in the end.
Amen to that Mary.
Hey that's got a real ring to it for an old Catholic boy (recovered) like me.
Once the material is archived the archivist is probably more resoponsible than the editorial staff. The editors deal with contemporary issues. The archivist will deal with the archived material. The training this archivist has will deal predominantly with information storage and retrieval issues. Such questions as can the material be easily found, and accessed easily are the fundamental questions asked, rather than the accuracy of the information.
Surely an addendum should be added as Julia suggested when the story is false to begin with. I can't see how this should require much effort, especially when the error has been pointed out and a correction issued.
If there are not provisions for this, there should be.
You say the archivist is probably more responsible. Does this mean that the archivist would have some kind of departmental autonomy to the point that an editor wouldn't have the authority to add addendums onto archived materials? I'm just not seeing how including something like that at the point where the materials are available to the public would threaten the mission of the archivist. The original materials are still in tact and available. I don't think Media Matters went past a call for 'journalistic integrity' which is why I reacted to your original post. You seemed to be implying that this site was demanding the Times actually expunge the public record of previously published materials. It just doesn't fit their M.O. as far as I've seen.
I might be wrong, but were you just trying to get someone to defend something that you didn't really think the site was doing? I'm honestly not trying to be rude but I've wrastled enough straw men and I've no appetite for Red Herring.
It's my opinion that this fellow/gal is trying to make a simple matter unnecessarily complex. A paper with pride would want the correct information to be added to show that they care about being truthful/accurate. But I guess I'm just a wide eyed optimist.
Yeah yer just a pie in the sky kooky 'ol gal that's fer sure. Integrity? Pride? Why yew must be from a place called the US of A!
Since he originally criticized MM for something they never did, and then never really addressed the fact that this was pointed out, the only logical solution Capitan is that he may not be a credible source of information. Maybe he didn't mean to lean that straw man up against the barn but he sure did work to cover the fact. I mean a masters degree? Clearly, I was in way over my head.
Sorry stepper, jes havin fun. Stayed up too late and checked the ol post.
Yes, Sundog & Julia, let me ed-u-cate ya, this whole thing is much too complicated for you without a master's in my field to understand--
the Noo York Times can't possibly correct a false story on their web site because...ahem...of reasons beyond their control which are very archival in nature.
That's all we can tell you at this time. When you get more degrees, we'll reveal more of this complicated process. Bye!