<$BlogRSDURL$> abbr, acronym { cursor: help; font-style: normal; font-weight:bold; color: #2a548d; /*border-bottom: 1px solid; */ }

Eminent Domain Stuff

New London Update (2/24/06)
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)

Wednesday, May 26, 2004



Does anyone still read the New York Times? If so, why?

I just don't understand how this pile of crap can still have a loyal following. People complain about Fox News, blah, blah, blah. Here's what Drudge has on his site as of now (there is no permanent link yet):

NYT EDITOR TO OFFER DEFENSE OF FLAWED IRAQ COVERAGE; REPORTER JUDITH MILLER OFF THE HOOK: 'Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper'... Developing...

I see. So the problem was not a few rogue reporters, but rather was systematic and pervasive. Think there'll be a Congressional hearing on this matter?

Now I wonder to which side they erred. Just one example:

Three days after its first report on the D.C. antiwar protests, readers of the New York Times were treated to a much different account of the same event. On October 30, the Times reported that the October 26 protests "drew 100,000 by police estimates and 200,000 by organizers', forming a two-mile wall of marchers around the White House. The turnout startled even organizers, who had taken out permits for 20,000 marchers."

This directly contradicted the Times' October 27 report, which noted that the "thousands" of demonstrators were "fewer people... than organizers had said they hoped for." The October 30 Times report also included much more information about similar protests around the country, and featured quotes from various antiwar activists...

As for the actual numbers:

...National Public Radio, another target of FAIR's action alert, has also offered a correction of its misleading coverage of the D.C. protest. The following message is now posted on NPR's website:

On Saturday, October 26, in a story on the protest in Washington, D.C. against a U.S. war with Iraq, we erroneously reported on All Things Considered that the size of the crowd was "fewer than 10,000." While Park Service employees gave no official estimate, it is clear that the crowd was substantially larger than that. On Sunday, October 27, we reported on Weekend Edition that the crowd estimated by protest organizers was 100,000. We apologize for the error.

Moral of the story? Read more blogs =).


Here is the full story from the NYT themselves. I applaud their candor here, but I wonder if it will change anything in the future. Somehow I doubt it.

Of course, the interesting thing here is that only one side of the equation is dealt with. I suppose they never erred in the other direction, huh?

Update 2:

Wizbang's all over this one:

The Times, like many in the media, made numerous mistakes in its coverage of Iraq. Perhaps the most (in)famous of all was the series of "Strategic Pause" stories. The stories, which ran only a few days after the start of the war, claimed that American forces were bogged down in Iraq and were forced to pause for a few weeks to regroup. "The war plan had failed" was a favorite quote of the day. Apparently the Pentagon missed the stories because just 2 weeks later, Iraqis were dancing in the streets and pulling down statues of Saddam as American tanks rolled thru Baghdad. The Times never did explain how it blew that story.

Read the rest. It's good.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?