How can any paper be less truthful than one who lets Jayson Blair make up stories so they can justify their racist hiring practic es?
Or still brag about the Pulitzer Prize that Walter Duranty won in the 1930s for making up
stories about the “Worker’s paradise of Joe Stalin” and deliberately ignoring the fact he murdered millions of people?
I’m betting I could find thousands.
According to your own cite, the New York Times received a complaint about Blair’s work on April 28, 2003. Blair resigned and on May 11, 2003, the Times printed a 7,239 word, front-page story headlined “Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception.”
Show me how the Times “let” Blair make up stories.
Here’s an easy comparison: The National Enquirer runs more bullshit than that on a regular basis, there’s no scandal over it, and nobody gets fired. They’ve done some real reporting, but it’s always mixed in with junk and people accept that for what it is. The Times makes an effort to be factual instead of running gossip with plausible deniability. Blair resigned once the Times found out he was making up stories, and the executive editor and managing editor were also forced to resign. The Times wasn’t the first or last paper to find out that a reporter had been making stuff up.
One thing I’ve always wondered is how much of the celebrity content, even one that casts the star in a negative light, was actually planted by stars and agents. Anyone have any backing for this idea?
You’re spelling it wrong.
It’s “Nationel”.
Truth is more ironic than fiction.
Hillary Clinton Brain Cancer Drama!.
Now updated with the news that - oops - it was a blood clot instead. But that’s OK, it’s “confirming The NATIONAL ENQUIRER’s special reports on her condition.” As long as you define “confirming” as “a brand new special meaning of cancer”.
And The New York Times doesn’t brag about Walter Duranty either:
Jim’s Son, what was the point of your post? If you had merely said that there were occasions when The New York Times didn’t check out the facts in some news stories, that wouldn’t even be controversial. But to claim that after the mistakes and lies were exposed the paper did nothing is clearly wrong. Are you interested in the truth, or are you merely interested in slanting facts yourself?
Right. By “confirming,” they mean that several days after they said she had brain cancer, she turned out to have an unrelated medical problem. And before anyone says the Enquirer was just reporting that she was seeing doctors about problems that turned out to be related to the blood clot - which would be plausible - here’s the kicker from the article: