| Author |
Message |
    
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5421
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:02 pm: | 
|
Another Bad Slip for 'NY Times': Katrina Victim Unmasked
By E&P Staff
Published: March 23, 2006 10:10 AM ET
NEW YORK For the second time in less than a week, The New York Times today admitted to a serious error in a story. On Saturday it said it had misidentified a man featured in the iconic "hooded inmate" photograph from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Today it discloses that a woman it profiled on March 8 is not, in fact, a victim of Hurricane Katrina--and was arrested for fraud and grand larceny yesterday.
As it did in the Abu Ghraib mistake, the Times ran an editors' note on page 2 of its front section, along with a lengthy news article (this time on the front page of Section B). Again mirroring the Abu Ghraib episode, the newspaper revealed a surprising and inexplicable lapse in fact-checking on the part of a reporter and/or editor.
The original article, more than 1000 words in length, was written by Nicholas Confessore. He also wrote the news article about the error today. Without saying that he wrote the first story, he wrote today: "The Times did not verify many aspects of Ms. Fenton's claims, never interviewed her children, and did not confirm the identity of the man she described as her husband."
The editors' note states:
"An article in The Metro Section on March 8 profiled Donna Fenton, identifying her as a 37-year-old victim of Hurricane Katrina who had fled Biloxi, Miss., and who was frustrated in efforts to get federal aid as she and her children remained as emergency residents of a hotel in Queens.
"Yesterday, the New York police arrested Ms. Fenton, charging her with several counts of welfare fraud and grand larceny. Prosecutors in Brooklyn say she was not a Katrina victim, never lived in Biloxi and had improperly received thousands of dollars in government aid. Ms. Fenton has pleaded not guilty.
"For its profile, The Times did not conduct adequate interviews or public record checks to verify Ms. Fenton's account, including her claim that she had lived in Biloxi. Such checks would have uncovered a fraud conviction and raised serious questions about the truthfulness of her account."
Last Saturday, the Times editors' note disclosed that Ali Shalal Qaissi, pictured on the front page "as the hooded man forced to stand on a box, attached to wires, in a photograph from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal of 2003 and 2004," was not that man. "The Times did not adequately research Mr. Qaissi's insistence that he was the man in the photograph," it related.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4604
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:23 pm: |
|
I guess there was no hurricane after all. Whew! |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 165
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 2:01 pm: |
|
You are so correct. When that liberal rag the NY Times was shilling for the Bush Administration via Judith Miller I should have been a more critical reader. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2703
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 3:00 pm: |
|
David Brooks who is featured on the Op-Ed page wrote "rekindled a resurgence" today in his column, which is a little redundant for a serious intellectual like him.
Leftist rag. |
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 1597
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 3:04 pm: |
|
I should stick to reading articles about Iraq that were written by military personnel pretending to be journalists and then distributed by Washington D.C. lobbyist that was hired by the Pentagon.
I know that those articles are totally objective. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 853
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 3:43 pm: |
|
No article is without bias. Except the boxscores. Which is why I am so fond of score sheets. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5426
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 8:49 pm: |
|
Very nice defenses here for "All The News We Wish To Print (And If We Have To, We'll Make Things Up or Look the Other Way)." |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6069
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 9:01 pm: |
|
wait I thought that was Fox news motto. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1712
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 9:10 pm: |
|
No article is without bias. Except the boxscores. Which is why I am so fond of score sheets.
amen! |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5429
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 9:49 pm: |
|
No, Duncan. The NY Times borrowed it from CBS. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1559
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 10:28 am: |
|
Speaking of CBS, I still wonder why the Feds never investigated who forged the National Guard documents. It was serious federal crime intended to influence a presidential election. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2708
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 11:31 am: |
|
I hear the Waspost has hire a new conservative blogger who's a real humdinger! That ought to balance things.
The truth is, the "working the refs" strategy of endless attack on NYTimes only indicates its importance, which is part of it's reliability. It isn't perfect, but its still the best around for practical purposes.
Washington Times? Come on. If it were better, or even good, people would read it.
|
GOP on you
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 305
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 12:58 pm: |
|
you need to be selective when you read papers like the NY Times. Like me for example - I know the Times was telling the truth when they reported on Whitewater and Iraq's WMD, regardless of what you libs say now. But with regard to this recent bit of Iraq-related Bush bashing, I know they're full of B.S.
you need to be able to be properly skeptical. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11047
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:32 pm: |
|
I saw a blurp on one of the cable news channels about how the Old Gray Lady has actually hired reporters and assigned them to cover the conservative side of things. Even they admit they don't have to do this for liberals. 
Still Fox News is worse. |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 170
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:34 pm: |
|
I am confused about a couple things though: Was the Times telling the truth about Whitewater when it said something may be fishy, or when it reported that nothing improper occurred, as did the independent counsel? Was the Times telling the truth when it said Iraq had WMD's or when it also reported there were no WMD's? Which is true and when do we need to be skeptical?
Why even split hairs? Let's just tell it like it is. Whenever the NY Times or any media outlet says something which supports Bush and/or Republicans it is undoubtedly accurate; if negative it is nothing but BS. The opposite holds for Clinton and/or democrats. That way we don't even have to worry about being skeptical or critical readers. Better yet, nobody even has to think.
Also, it's good to see we've all moved on from Clinton and Whitewater.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5438
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 2:26 pm: |
|
bettyd -- You're dreaming or in denial. The NY Times never reported that nothing fishy occured, especially after the sitting governor of AR was indicted and later convicted. Nor did the independent counsel some to that conclusion. You must have heard that on CBS, or maybe it was a NY Times editorial. There were 15 convictions surrounding Whitewater including Associate US Attorney General Webb Hubbell. Clinton pardoned four of them.
If the NY Times reported that intelligence agencies around the world had said Iraq still had WMD, they'd be on solid footing. If they report that no WMD have been found, they're on solid footing. If they say Saddam destroyed them, they have no evidence backing that up -- which isn't to say that would stop them necessarily. |
GOP on you
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 306
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 4:27 pm: |
|
I already know what to believe and what not to believe, so I only pay the barest minimum attention to the MSM. |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 171
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Let me clarify. I was referring to the Clintons. No wrongdoing by the Clintons was found by the independent counsel, and they were not indicted at the end of a lengthy, thorough and expensive investigation. I'll admit my memory of the events is not the greatest. Didn't the deal take place in the 70's? I admit I haven't thought about Whitewater for many years.
As for news, every news source should be read critically. I am an avid NY Times reader and think it is one of the greatest newspapers in the world, if not the greatest, despite its faults. In your first post above it is noted that they admitted their mistakes and apologized. If only some others in the media would do that. I am also an avid reader of the WSJ and think it is one of the greatest papers in the world, despite its faults. I read them both, and other sources, and make up my own mind. I was just noting that the poster above seems to believe what he reads in the NY Times when it confirms his views and does not when it challenges them. A problem with many on this board, including myself at times.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4612
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 4:36 pm: |
|
The Washington Post's new conservative blogger turns out to be a serial plagiarist. Not even bothering to paraphrase, he steals whole paragraphs word-for-word. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2710
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 4:38 pm: |
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page