posted on May 10, 2005 04:56:09 AMTimes vows to do better in ethics
yea, we'll see how that goes - time will tell
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 10, 2005
The New York Times cleaned house in public yesterday.
In an open report to staff and readers, the 144-year-old newspaper vowed to re-examine its ethics and news practices to restore credibility lost during a humiliating scandal.
Two years ago, reporter Jayson Blair left the paper under charges of fraud and plagiarism; Executive Editor Howell Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd resigned in the aftermath, leaving the staff demoralized but resolved to right the wrong.
"It is no longer sufficient to argue reflexively that our work speaks for itself. In today's media environment, such a minimal response damages our credibility.
Critics, competitors and partisans can too easily caricature who we are and we do," the new report states.
Titled "Preserving our reader's trust," the internal analysis was authored by 19 Times staffers drawn primarily from investigative and political beats.
In many ways, the project has pulled the paper back from the high-stakes, frantic realm of the 24-hour news cycle that has pitted print against broadcast and the Internet for a slice of a diminishing audience.
The Times has vowed to curtail but not eliminate casual, daily reliance on anonymous sources and to reduce "garden variety factual errors." The paper also aspires to verify facts, clarify boundaries between news and opinion and cut back on use of blanket labels such as "religious fundamentalists" -- which the report deemed a "loaded term."
One outside analyst also "found that the overall tone of our coverage of gay marriage, as one example, 'approaches cheerleading.'," the report said.
While some critics have accused the Times of blatant liberal bias, it has lost credibility on both sides of the fence. A Pew Research Center survey found last year, for instance, that 31 percent of Democrats believed what they read in the Times; the number was 14 percent among Republicans.
And while the report promised the Times would be more "open and forthcoming," it also reveals that reporters may not be so quick to jump before network cameras in the future.
"On occasion, our reporters have been lured into offering opinions or making statements that went beyond their reporting and expertise," the
analysis notes.
yea....on occassion....more the 'norm' than not
In addition, it recommended the Times shed some of its East Coast elitism and increase coverage of middle and rural America "from exurbs to hinterland," while providing readers immediate outlets to comment on coverage or contact staff.
"I believe this document represents a sound blueprint for the next stage of our campaign to secure our accuracy, fairness and accountability," Executive Editor Bill Keller said in a message to Times staffers yesterday.
The paper is not alone in its journalistic woes. This year alone, reporters from the Detroit Free Press, USA Today, Tampa (Fla.) Tribune and Atlanta Journal-Constitution have resigned or been investigated for providing fraudulent news coverage.
----------------
So they're telling us they're going to 'come clean' now. Same thing they said immediately following the Jayson Blair shake-up. But it does sound like they're going to 'work' at keeping 'more' of the op-ed pieces on their op-ed page, rather than adding their own political 'slant' to all the news they're reporting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 10, 2005 09:16:42 PM
Wow, now if we can only get the Republicans to do the same. How many ethics violations have they found on Delay???? Just wondering.
[ edited by rustygumbo on May 10, 2005 09:21 PM ]
posted on May 11, 2005 12:10:52 AM
Just wondering if BUSH will develop some ethics(fat chance) and stop the illegal payments to conservative talk show criminals to present his wacky ideas as facts ???????
posted on May 12, 2005 08:58:24 PM
oh hellllleeeennnnnn!
Is there some reason you're avoiding this thread? I posted it just for you. You were always disagreeing with me that the times was VERY biased towards the liberals and you didn't believe they were a liberal paper.
Thought you, above all, would appreciate them 'fessin' up to writing the news under VERY POOR journalistic standands...mixing their opinions in with the news - rather than keeping them ONLY in their op-ed columns. Black mark on them. again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 12, 2005 09:10:10 PM
Gee....it seems to me just yesterday that you and rusty were whining about me not staying on topic in the thread YOU THOUGHT you owned.
No, let there be no doubt I have no wish to converse with you, cf.
And you were right....about your ending threads. Appears you can't take hints....as others have stated also.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 12, 2005 09:14:48 PM
Another whopper lie by the Queen of Lies....
"" in the thread YOU THOUGHT you owned"""
Your insinuation that I said I owned a thread is a lie. I have asked you to prove it and you can't.
"""No, let there be no doubt I have no wish to converse with you, cf.""
Ya, whenever I make a good point or bring up Armstrong Williams
Besides you DO converse with me...until I back you into a corner and make a fool of you
ANOTHER lie!""Appears you can't take hints....as others have stated also."""
Prove it and who cares
The New York Times supported George Bush throughout the Iraq war and during both elections. The most biased newspaper is the one that published your article, the Washington Times. It's definitely a right wing newspaper in the same league as Fox News. The New York Times is only Liberal in comparison to the Right-Wing Washington Times .
It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Both papers supported Bush. The only difference is the degree of bias.
posted on May 12, 2005 09:19:55 PM
Oh, is this where you picked up your insinuations you're so good at?
YES, it was so funny that you accused me of shadowing you when YOU posted in a thread I started
""Linda_K
posted on May 10, 2005 11:13:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Shadow...the one who's always stuck on each post I make.
What a totally ignorant statement that was....Free speech? GET REAL. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with people NOT WANTING TO LISTEN. Least not until you progressives get control and FORCE people to listen against their will.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
crowfarm
posted on May 10, 2005 11:20:49 AM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good try, elephant, but no go.
People DO listen...those that aren't afraid of the truth....not people like you whose tunnel vision and frozen brain wouldn't accept a new idea ever.
Republicans must be listening...they paid for their ads on Air America
This is funny...""Dear Shadow...the one who's always stuck on each post I make.""
Whose OP was it????
Force people, no, we leave that to the REgressives who force our troops to listen to the drug-crazed limbaugh with no other choice.
And you forgot to address this part of my post:
And ILLEGAL REPUBLICAN money was given to conservative talk show hosts.......liberal radio has taken NO illegal money from a crooked president like the CONSERVATIVES DID!
"""
I said it was my OP and it was ....that was no lie...but everything off your keyboard is.
posted on May 12, 2005 09:19:56 PM
Just as I thought, helen. Even when THEY admit themselves how their journalists haven't been following the ethics of good journalism....you just can't see it.
As far as I know...the Washington Times NOR Fox News has had to 'repent' like the NYT just did. Must be why their ratings keep going up and up while the NYT recognized theirs were declining and figured out they'd better do something about it. Some to reverse the downward slide.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 12, 2005 09:21:36 PM
Helen, linduh never speaks to me after I mention Armstrong Williams so if you ever want to stop that flapping mouth of hers just say his name.....she has never addressed THAT little issue
[ edited by crowfarm on May 12, 2005 09:22 PM ]
posted on May 12, 2005 09:35:21 PM
Another newspaper in the D.C. area is the Washington POST....similar to the New York Times. So don't get the two Wasington papers confused....The Washington Times is a conservative right-wing paper. The Washington Post is moderate.
posted on May 12, 2005 09:55:57 PM
LOL helen...don't try to imply that I don't know that. You used the NYT and the WashPost all the time to defend or support your anti-war anti-Bush statements.
Helen....just admit it to yourself....the NYT ADMITS they weren't being ethical in their paper. They admit their reporting was biased and DID include personal, liberal opinions in their reporting of the news.
This following the shake up two years ago with Blair and a couple of top-dogs there. Obviously they didn't learn then...but now subscriptions are way down and they HAD to acknowledge they were doing something wrong. So THEY sought out what it was....and this is THEIR conclusion. Not mine, helen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 12, 2005 09:59:21 PM
And also, helen, if your short term memory bank is 1/2 way functioning...you'll remember that bunni and I had many a conversation about the lies the NYT was printing. I told her they were...she, of course, denied it. But then I'd point out to her that day's later the Times would post their corrections way in the back on page 16. They repeatedly did that. Now THEY ADMIT they didn't always have all their FACTS correct....because they hadn't done their job...and properly verified their annon. sources.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 12, 2005 10:04:38 PM
AND the Washington Post IS VERY liberal...not moderate at all. They are right under the NYT in their leaning left liberalism.
--------------
dbl...that's IT!! She's my groupie. I kept trying to think how I could post a link that would play 'Me and My Shadow' each time she's right behind every post I make. So I resorted to 'stuck like glue'...my Shadow...etc. But GROUPIE is so much more appropriate. You've always been much better with words than I....and that is right on.
posted on May 13, 2005 04:18:38 AM
Look Helen and Dble, you have a "groupie".
"""Linda_K
posted on May 12, 2005 09:59:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And also, helen, if your short term memory bank is 1/2 way functioning...you'll remember that bunni and I had many a conversation about the lies the NYT was printing. I told her they were...she, of course, denied it. But then I'd point out to her that day's later the Times would post their corrections way in the back on page 16. They repeatedly did that. Now THEY ADMIT they didn't always have all their FACTS correct....because they hadn't done their job...and properly verified their annon. sources.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
Linda_K
posted on May 12, 2005 10:04:38 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND the Washington Post IS VERY liberal...not moderate at all. They are right under the NYT in their leaning left liberalism.
--------------
dbl...that's IT!! She's my groupie. I kept trying to think how I could post a link that would play 'Me and My Shadow' each time she's right behind every post I make. So I resorted to 'stuck like glue'...my Shadow...etc. But GROUPIE is so much more appropriate. You've always been much better with words than I....and that is right on."""
posted on May 13, 2005 06:03:22 AM
Helen, she (crowfarm) does it so consistantly - it is exactly like that. -I wasnt talking about you, or being called to the thread, I can read.
posted on May 13, 2005 06:12:21 AM
The reason crowfarm posts before dbl is that crowfarm is quicker on the trigger. She is a lady (pardon the pun)in waiting to pounce on every thread. You have to be quicker dbl to outwit crowfarm you should have figured that out by now. If dbl would just be a little faster she would win the who gets their first contest
Linda I was thinking the same song. It was a Judy Garland Fred Astaire song I think..
posted on May 13, 2005 06:30:57 AM
lol yes, libra. why do you think I call her jack in the box? You know the song right?
Now you wont be able to get the tune out of your head all day!! hahahaha?!!
Round and round the cobbler's bench
The monkey chased the weasel,
The monkey thought 'twas all in fun
Pop! Goes the weasel.
A penny for a spool of thread
A penny for a needle,
That's the way the money goes,
Pop! Goes the weasel.
A half a pound of tupenny rice,
A half a pound of treacle.
Mix it up and make it nice,
Pop! Goes the weasel.
Up and down the London road,
In and out of the Eagle,
That's the way the money goes,
Pop! Goes the weasel.
I've no time to plead and pine,
I've no time to wheedle,
Kiss me quick and then I'm gone
Pop! Goes the weasel.
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on May 13, 2005 06:34 AM ]
posted on May 13, 2005 10:36:49 AM
[i]So linda called me to her thread that she posted just for me[i]...
Pathetic.
Pathetic??? Oh, you LOVE the attention.
Yep...just for you helen. Because you're the one who has continually denied the NYT was biased...you're the one who has stated, more than once, you DON'T think they or the WashingtonPost ARE liberal papers.
But hey...you NEVER mentioned what old media paper you do believe is liberal. Maybe the Moscow Times and their writers....the one you did agree with?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 13, 2005 04:03:30 PM
LOL - And speaking of newspapers - here's one that doesn't have a problem admitting that they are liberal AND that they want it to stay that way...even after it's sold.
By Mark Fitzgerald
Published: May 13, 2005 3:10 PM ET
CHICAGO When Lee Enterprises Inc. agreed to purchase Pulitzer Inc. for $1.46 billion, it also agreed that the flagship St. Louis Post-Dispatch will keep its longstanding liberal editorial slant for at least the next five years, according to the purchase agreement mailed to Pulitzer shareholders Friday.
"For a period of at least five years following the Effective Time, Parent (Lee Enterprises) will cause the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to maintain its current name and editorial page platform statement and to maintain its news and editorial headquarters in the City of St. Louis, Missouri," the agreement states.
The Post-Dispatch platform statement, adopted in 1911, includes the pledge that the newspaper "will always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty."
Over the years, the paper's editorials have taken a reliably Democratic or liberal view of issues, positions some worried would change under Lee's ownership.
And for you who are so offended by what CEO's of corporations get in severance pay....check out what this guy's getting. NO different than those you complain about.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on May 13, 2005 04:12 PM ]
posted on May 16, 2005 02:13:33 PM
Newsweek's feet to the fire now. tsk tsk tsk
[or as some are referring to them as -weaknews']
'Adversary' Journalism Run Amok
An editorial in the Arab News, a Saudi English-language newspaper, vouches for the high journalistic standards of an American newsmagazine:
The US weekly "Newsweek" is a highly reputable and responsible publication, rarely prone to making mistakes. So when it reports, as it has done, that copies of the Qur'an were desecrated at the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay, people will believe the story.
People in the Muslim world certainly do. The anger it has stirred up in Afghanistan has left a trail of death and destruction. Incensed at the blasphemy, Afghans have lashed out in fury in all directions. The fact that not only government and UN buildings were burned but even mosques shows the depths of their rage. The same level public anger has been reported from Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt and many other Muslim countries.
Whoops! It turns out the story--which according to Reuters, provoked rioting in Afghanistan that has killed at least 16--wasn't true, as Newsweek now acknowledges:
Late last week Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita told Newsweek that its original story was wrong. The brief Periscope item "SouthCom Showdown" had reported on the expected results of an upcoming U.S. Southern Command investigation into the abuse of prisoners at Gitmo. According to Newsweek, SouthCom investigators found that Gitmo interrogators had flushed a Qur'an down a toilet in an attempt to rattle detainees. While various released detainees have made allegations about Qur'an desecration, the Pentagon has, according to DiRita, found no credible evidence to support them.
Reuters quotes Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker: "We're not saying it absolutely happened but we can't say that it absolutely didn't happen either."
YEP - GREAT JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS - NOT!!
Andrew Sullivan, who has long had an peculiar preoccupation with "torture" tales, endorses the fake-but-accurate standard of journalism: "I reiterate what I wrote Saturday: 'Even if this incident turns out to be false, our previous policies have made it perfectly plausible.' That's the deeper issue here."
Glenn Reynolds gets it right:
If [Newsweek] had wrongly reported the race of a criminal and produced a lynching, they'd feel much worse--which is why they generally don't report such things, a degree of sensitivity they don't extend to reporting on, you know, minor topics like wars.....People died, and U.S. military and diplomatic efforts were damaged, because--let's be clear here--Newsweek was too anxious to get out a story that would make the Bush Administration and the military look bad.
Journalists have to make myriad judgment calls, and this is far from the first time a news organization has jumped the gun and reported information that turned out to be false--though usually the consequences aren't so bloody. But it's fair to say this is an example of "adversary" journalism getting out of control. Reporters are not agents of the government, but it wouldn't hurt if, at least during wartime, they were restrained by some sense of patriotism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
taken from the WSJ
[ edited by Linda_K on May 16, 2005 02:24 PM ]
posted on May 17, 2005 10:20:21 AM
I certainly hope the time comes QUICKLY when those who oppose or are anti-Bush about everything...start taking responsibility for THEIR actions and see it doesn't JUST accomplish what their goal is...[someway hurt the republican party]...but rather that it hurts our country as a whole.
I for one am sick and tired of all these 'lefties' NOT verifying their 'journalistic stories' BEFORE the continue to cause the damage to our Nation that they have...and continue to do.
This is but one example of their actions that I've mentioned in previous posts. What they do often HURTS the Nation, but they can't see that...no......
An International 'flare-up', people being killed, our soldiers being put MORE at risk now, more hated being focused on America BECAUSE of these UNPROVEN statements that a so called journalist didn't verify. ANOTHER so called journalist...to whom it was more important to smear this administration than to be concerned about how it would effect his own countrymen. Oh...but that freedom of speech and all...FAR more important to the lefties that ANYTHING be printed as TRUTH....rather than getting the actual FACTS straight.
hmmm....quite a pattern of the Bush haters not acting in America's best interest that we continue to see from the left.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!
[ edited by Linda_K on May 17, 2005 10:51 AM ]
the Washington Post IS VERY liberal...not moderate at all. They are right under the NYT in their leaning left liberalism.