Is anyone happy with The New York Times?
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.
August 25th, 2005 at 11:56 am
What a joke that the Times has a “public editor” who refuses to correct the record with regard to Krugman’s continuing problem with the truth. Blogs have really killed the Times, perhaps more than any other news organization. Even C-BS.
Stay on them!
August 25th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
The New York Times is agreat paper, my dogs love it!
August 25th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
Well, if you want to get more detailed about Krugman’s article– The 2 consortia ran a total of 12 recount scenarios, with 8 showing Gore would have won, and 4 showing Bush would have won (That’s 2 out of 3 in one, 6 out of 9 in the other). Now I know a majority doesn’t always equal victory in BushWorld, but a “lie?” Don’t think so.
Sorry if that explanation is too “nuanced” for some of you.
“Losing his mind” might also be a bit over the top.
Krugman also stated quite clearly that the scenario involoving the standing Florida Supreme Court recount order is one of the ones that would have given the election to Bush.
Why does any mention of 2000 spark such a defensive reaction from the Right?
Yawn.
August 25th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
This post has been removed by the author.
August 26th, 2005 at 9:57 am
DougH:
Ooo, them’s fighting words. Now let’s see if you can get some good, unemotional retort back that does not involve blaming the evil liberal media or the Clintons (who of course are the reason for every evil, from pimples to high treason).
As someone who long ago stopped listening to discussions about the 2000 election, I am curious where the truth lies here. IS what DougH says here right or wrong? Just a straight answer and no anger. Where could I go to get an unbiased look at this.
And for the record, I voted for Bush. So all of you out there about the start throwing insults, just shhhhhh.
August 26th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Hey Optimist, don’t believe me, don’t believe DougH, would you believe Paul Krugman himslef? He issued a correction today in his column…
Corrections: In my column last Friday, I cited an inaccurate number (given by the Conyers report) for turnout in Ohio’s Miami County last year: 98.5 percent. I should have checked the official state site, which reports a reasonable 72.2 percent. Also, the public editor says, rightly, that I should acknowledge initially misstating the results of the 2000 Florida election study by a media consortium led by The Miami Herald. Unlike a more definitive study by a larger consortium that included The New York Times, an analysis that showed Al Gore winning all statewide manual recounts, the earlier study showed him winning two out of three.
May 6th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Array