Could the ‘paper of record’ actually be worse under editor Bill Keller than it was under Jayson Blair enabler Howell Raines? It sure seems like it lately.
We all know by now that when it comes to opinion editorials, the New York Times has ZERO credibility. After all, they continue to publish Paul Krugman’s distortions and outright lies. Check out his latest, one his most blatent yet,
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida’s ballots; both found
that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.
This one is so easily debunked, it makes you wonder if Krugman is getting lazy, or simply losing his mind. Our go-to-guy for all things Krugman, Don Luskin, had this to say in a post titled, The Truth Counts,
Krugman’s lie was especially loathsome considering that his own newspaper
— the New York Times — was a member of one of the media consortiums to review
the election results. But will the Times run a correction, at least concerning
Krugman’s blatant factual misrepresentations about the Miami Herald/USA Today
consortium’s results? As of this writing, I’ve heard nothing in response to my
query about it to “public editor” Byron Calame. I’m not holding my breath.
There’s no way the New York Times is going to interrupt its most effective
evangelist when he’s in the middle of a fire-and-brimstone sermon about the
Angry Left’s cherished creation-myth.
Luskin also points us to this open letter from Instutional Shareholder Services head John Connolly. His gripe with the New York Times? It’s business page and the unfair, innaccurate reporting of Gretchen Morgenson.
And now Mark Cuban, the brash billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks is complaining about another Times business reporter. Cuban lays it all out, including his e-mail exchange with the Times reporter, on his excellent blog, Blog Maverick.
Anatomy of a New York Times Article
I responded to what I hoped would be an interesting discussion about the merits
of a company based on a referral from someone I respected, from a newspaper I
respected.Instead, the article was more a personal attack than a representation
of our email exchange. Furthermore, even after the above exchange, the author
preferred to quote the press release saying why I wouldnâ??t vote for the deal
rather than our email exchange.