UPDATE: NY Times published correction to flawed Lieberman article
On October 25, The New York Times published an article correcting a false assertion made in an October 24 Times article on Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (CT) -- that Lieberman never "utter[ed] the words 'stay the course' " with regard to the Iraq war. Media Matters for America documented several instances in which Lieberman used that exact phrase when discussing Iraq. The October 25 article noted: "Senator Joseph I. Lieberman has used the phrase 'stay the course' several times in discussing the war in Iraq in recent years, echoing a key phrase of the White House, contrary to an article published Tuesday in The New York Times." The Times also posted a correction to the online version of the October 24 article, noting that "Mr. Lieberman has indeed used the phrase; in the hundreds of statements reviewed, it appears at least half a dozen times."
An October 24 Editor & Publisher article noted:
The New York Times runs dozens of corrections every month, usually minor and brief. Rarely does it carry what it calls a "corrective" article, but it does so on Wednesday.
It came about after the liberal media watchdog site, Media Matters, along with various bloggers, challenged a Times article on Tuesday which had asserted that close research revealed that Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) -- now in a tight electon fight -- had never used the phrase "stay the course" in relation to Iraq policy.
As does most of the liberal establishment so this is not s suprise. Too bad Lamont is a flawed candidate and has not run a smart campaign, we could have actually defeated Lieberman with someone stonger than a man who lays people off and quits his country club prior to running for Senate because he is all white.
NY Times hates Lieberman As does most of the liberal establishment so this is not s suprise.
**************************
Keep up with comments like that and you will destroy the myth here that the NY Times is a right wing publication. Can't have that, now be quiet!
It amazes me that Lieberman has been such a target of the liberal establishment. The fact is he was our VP in 2000 and yet because of one position on the war he is marked and hated. Yet nothing about his pro choice record, record on education, and the enviornment.
I am not from CT but have friends there who are voting for Lieberman based on his overall record.
As for the NYT , its not a right wing paper at all. It may have a few right wing reporters but I dont call Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich right wingers.
This whole thing got flagged so let me restate my position.
You say "only this one issue" which is this horrible war of choice. Lieberman chose to criticize Democrats who felt the war is going badly. Lieberman missed voting on Iraq legislation where he could've made a difference for Dems. He left the party after losing the primary. Rove and Republicans are helping his campaign.
He's not a target only of liberals, but of all of us who oppose Bush and his war. America deserves better and hopefully your friends will figure this out in the next 2 weeks.
it's the fact he called his own party "out of the mainstream" and said those who criticized bush were "partisan", as if bush himself doesn't define the word partisan. you were unaware of these things?
Yep the cat's out of the bag. NY Times is not a conservative publication. Well I still do not think it is "Far Left" I never for a second believed it was biased toward the right. NY Times is biased(not as bad as Murdoch's paper) but I believe they do a noble job of reporting...
Who said that the Times was a right-wing publication?
that's why he posts under so many names here LOL!
>>>"the myth here that the NY Times is a right wing publication."<<<
We do not await from you the several examples or quotes of people saying the NY Times is "a right wing publication", because you don't have any.
How many of you here constantly whine about the mainstream media being a mouthpiece for Bush and the right? The NY Times is front and center for the mainstream media - many of their articles get reprinted in hundreds of newspapers across this country......so they are very influential and powerful - and mainstream.
So stop your fake indignation.
like all of your posts. try dealing with what is asked not what you want to answer. Your way is called 'lying'. Look it up.
>>>"How many of you here constantly whine about the mainstream media..." etc."<<<
In other words, you have no examples of anyone claiming the NY Times is "right wing" (as YOU stated was the "myth around here")-- no quotes, no case, no nothing. Just as we all knew, it was another straw man.
You stick with that then. Just look at the humdreds of NY Times threads in the archives here where it's blasted daily for being right wing. And then sit there and tell me that nobody says that. You just look foolish.
However, it's good to have you on the record as saying they are part of the liberal establishment. You see, you can't have it both ways. At times, talking out of both sides of your mouth is your own worst enemy.
>>"...blasted daily for being right wing. And then sit there and tell me that nobody says that. You just look foolish. ... it's good to have you on the record as saying they are part of the liberal establishment."<<
There is no "myth" here that the NY Times is "right wing". Again, that's your straw man. You have nothing to back it up. It's just totally fabricated out of thin air by you.
You duck and dodge and immaturely lash-out at me as being "foolish" and so forth, all because no evidence of anyone here claiming the NY Times is "right wing" exists, and you can't bring yourself to admit that fact.
And your other claim is also fabricated. Point to where I "said [the NY Times] was "part of the liberal establishment. You won't be able to, because I didn't say it. Not here, not anywhere.
Stay with me here, because you tend to get all tied up and may strangle yourself with all the "strawman" silliness you toss up. I love that term that is used here so often - whenever an argument can't be refuted on it's terms, that word is always thrown up as some infallible defense.......it works with some here, not me though. But keep trying, if that's all you've got.
Now, which is it? I agreed with the original poster here who said the NY Times was part of the liberal establishment and not right wing. You promptly said that nobody ever said it was right wing, even though dozens of threads are devoted here to that newspaper who would disagree with you - most likely the staff here at MMFA. Then you say they aren't liberal either? So, logically you are saying they are fair and balanced and middle of the road - fine. If you don't even say that, then one wonders if there are three sides of your mouth and you are having way too much trouble reigning them in.
So, clarify please.........for all your personalities to be on the same page.
>>>"So, clarify please"<<<
Gladly.
Your two latest straw men:
You fabricated out of thin air the false claim that there is a "myth around here [this discussion forum] that the NY Times is a right-wing publication". The thing is, no such myth here exists. You offered no evidence, no quotes, no examples, no nothing. Except vitriolic responses, that is.
You also falsely claimed I said that "the Times is part of the liberal establishment". The problem? I never once said what you claim I said. Not once, not ever. Another thing you simply just made up.
If you ever find some facts to discuss, rather than just making $#!+ up like the above, let us know.
That the mainstream media, and the NY Times, provided cover for the Bush administration at various times in the past.
That fact does not mean that we ever said that the NY Times was a right wing publication.
You're wrong. Get over it.
Do you ever admit when you are wrong? Ever?
I come to your rescue, and CONFESS: I have often accused the NYTimes of "drinking the rightwing KoolAid" (to use an O'Reilly/Hannity/Limbaugh phrase).
It started when they buried the lead on the 2000 election, when they reported with a headline saying BUSH WON, but the STORY shows that Gore actually won when all the votes were counted, and Bush could only be made to look to win if segments of the LEGAL VALID votes were excluded.
It continued when they reported the run-up to the IRAQ WAR -- particularly the stenographer-to-Rove "reporter" Judith Miller -- stating all the White House SPIN as "facts" in their newspaper, without questioning and without investigative reporting.
So, YES INDEED, the NYTimes has been in league with the Rightwing since at least 2000, and has been instrumental in helping the White House spread their LIES and SPIN to the American People.
Much as the White House used and abused Colin Powell, channeling into his respect and integrity to get HIM to lie for them and putting his reputation on the line (to be destroyed by trusting the Bushies), the NYTimes has been compromised and will have to struggle hard to regain the integrity of reporting the FACTS. (As we all know, the TRUTH has a "liberal bias", because the TRUTH will invariably harm the rightwing's story line.)
........for agreeing that the NY Times is the "liberal establishment" as stated above.
it is not an either/or situation and you trying to force it into one is all part and parcel of the fallacies and lies you try to peddle.
That the NY Times is a right wing publication.
There are the facts that the NY Times sometimes posts conservative misinformation in their role as a member of the media.
There's no myth that they are a conservative publication.
Take your strawman argument and put it where the sun don't shine, Tommy.
Sue, Sue, Sue,
Be careful Honey - I know your mouth probably gets you in more trouble than Mark Foley's fantasies, but those comments and insults, that you are infamous for, will just get you banned again!! Now, you don't want that, do you? It must be exhausting coming up with different screen names all the time in order for you to surface again?
If you want, I can help you and fax you a book of names? Or at least a Miss Manners so you can clean up your potty mouth.
That's a very strange definition of the word.
NY Times deserves credit for being responsive to MMFA and others, and fixing the problem. If anyone has a basis for accusing NY Times of favoring one candidate over the other, it would be those who would ask why the NY Times reporter couldn't get the facts right in the first place, since the data base search should have been simple.
Did you even read the correction? Their own database, which they searched no fewer than 3 times prior to going to print, showed that Lieberman HAD used the phrase "stay the course," yet they still went to print saying that Lieberman had NOT used the phrase. The research and reporting were shoddy to the point that one would be justified in suspecting collusion between the Times and the Lieberman campaign. Then, after howling from people furnished with the facts, they print a correction, at the bottom of the page, buried in the Metro section.
Nobody at the Times who was involved in this sorry episode deserves any credit whatsoever.
How DARE the NYT and MMFA report what Lieberman actually said? You're not supposed to remember that kind of thing when voting! Nobody ever said "stay the course!" No no no, certainly not Joe. Vote Lieberman.
"Stay The Course"????
I haven't heard any such thing, BUT do correct me IF I'm wrong.
This is simply VERY sloppy research & reporting by TWO NY Times journalists.
The Times erroneously reported that Lieberman never said "stay the course." This error leans in favor of Lieberman. So, now that they've corrected it and printed the truth, you see that as proof that they hate Lieberman? Ridiculous.
>>>"Too bad Lamont is a flawed candidate ... we could have actually defeated Lieberman..."<<<
Since you seem so very, very concerned, please tell us all how "we" can "actually defeat Lieberman". The so-called "flawed candidate" Lamont already defeated Lieberman in the Democratic primary, and is right now within striking distance of the turncoat, Bush suck-up, Bush-kissing Lieberman.
<>
We could have defeated Lieberman if we had a reputable candidate for instance Richard Blumenthal. The Democratic Primary in CT was not a relfection of that state. That state is mainly independent, It is also a state that has used the Death Penalty and although the coast is Liberal the Interior is not. A better candidate would have been one that was able to represent all the people not just the bloggers on Daily Kos.
I dont think Lieberman is a Bush suck up considering he actually ran against Bush in 2000, Lamont didnt.
The rumors of Lamont's demise have been greatly exaggerated.
And too bad that the NYT has a couple of reporters that act as shills for the Republicans.
Judith Miller for one, probably the one reporter most responsible for the Iraq war. So long Judith...
I don't know the politics of Jennifer Medina and Anne Kornblut, but they certainly are poor researchers. Since incompetence is generally the hallmark of Republicans, particularly those on the hard right, I would assume these two are such.
"Any Senator that blindly accepts only the intelligence provided to them by the White House..."
I bet the Senators were used to getting accurate information about reasons to go to war up until 2002, at least those in the post Gulf of Tonkin era of Congress, which should be everyone except Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond, no?
I was thinking this to myself yesterday when I read the Lieberman piece. It's obvious that Kornblut or somebody at the New York Times reads Media Matters for America. We already know that O'Reilly, Savage, Matthews, Hume, people at CNN and other media outlets obviously read Media Matters for America.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Here is an instance where your fact-checking paid off and the misleading article was corrected in a timely and comprehensive manner. Bonus, NYT gave you a plug!
Then, MMFA printed their correction so we would stop sending e-mails to the guilty.
In my opinion, MMFA is perfect!!!
That's a knee-slapper!
The only reason the correction ran is because of the cascade of outrage that appeared in the comments section of the online version of the original story. I assure you it had nothing to do with Anne Kornblut's diligent scrutiny of the internets. Snort!
I should think that the people of CT would be the ones to best decide whether or not Lamont or Lieberman best represent their views..
(I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever Dems were immune from being bigots or belonging in exclusionary organizations. If anything it's almost like Repubs carry those types of things around like some kind of badge of honor)
They both have warts from what I've read, and the NY Times in the shrub era still hasn't done those of us who want to know what's going on any favors.
Keeping a wary eye on the Times and the rest of the MSM is a service I personally am grateful that MMFA provides..
To find out if Lieberman used the words "stay the course", you search for "Lieberman" and "stay the course".
Let me repeat that. By searching for "Lieberman" and "stay the course", you find out if Lieberman used the phrase "stay the course".
I have never been so flabbergasted at this press corps. This is Forrest Gump dumb. It is apalling.
Have you ever successfully found a page on the internet with a search engine? You are smarter than an author for the paper of record.
And of course if you have a passing acquaintance with Lieberman, and one might expect the authors of an article about Lieberman to have such an acquaintance, you wouldn't need to search to know that he used "stay the course".
I need to hit my head into the wall a few times now. Then I'll go back to reading the news, so I can "get informed".
Another embarassment for the NYT. The internet has changed how news is reviewed - that news is reviewed. Having been exposed as another mindless mouthpiece for the Bush Iraq War administration (what? still no WMD?) and an important cheerleader (like Joe Lieberman) until (unlike Joe Lieberman) the Cheney/Libby connection was revealed, the NYT continues to show its weakness in thorough and accurate research.
Where oh where does the buck stop at the NYT?
This one's in Israel...a far-far-far-right politician who publically calls for the ethnic cleansing of all arabs from Israel and the Occupied Territories.
Him and his ultra-racist party has just been brought into coalition within the Olmert government and has been given the post of strategy planning for Israel.
It's gonna get worse, folks. The Crusaders are getting ever closer to total war on Islam.
What has become of Fitzgerald? Did he drop off the face of the earth? KEN STARR was in the news nearly every DAY of his tenure as Clinton persecutor.
What has become of Fitzgerald? Did he drop off the face of the earth? KEN STARR was in the news nearly every DAY of his tenure as Clinton persecutor.
In the case of Ken Starr, everytime he turned over another rock, there was another crime, like perjury or obstruction of justice. Everytime Fitzmas, as he was effectionatly referred to around here, turns over another rock, he finds no wrongdoing. He's probably hiding somewhere out of embarrassment.
please update yourself on the various "scandals". Repubs made allegations or created scandals that were non existent. Its started with Lee Atwater and ballooned from there. There was a well financed scandal industry and a sorry, soulless prosecuter named Ken Starr. And the media was complicit as well. BC didn't help by his reckless behavior with Monica. His only "crime" was lying about "having sex wuth that woman". If you want to do more than bloviate about this sad episode in American history, try reading an excellent book by Joe Conason and Joe Lyons called "The Hunting of the President". Joe Conason especially is a very good investigative reporter. Sorry to be off topic...just responding.