QandO
Questions and Observations| « Crushing of dissent - in a bear hug | Main | Clark the phony? » |
|
January 27, 2004 NYT Corrections.. Corrections in the NYT! Substantive ones! It's a miracle! Of course, we could do with fewer miracles and more good journalism, since these mistakes should be easily avoidable. From January 27th.... ...a front-page article yesterday about David A. Kay...misstated his view of whether the agency's analysts had been pressured by the Bush administration to tailor their prewar intelligence reports about Iraq's weapons programs to conform to a White House political agenda. Mr. Kay said he believed that there was no such pressure, not that there was. And.... A front-page news analysis article....referred incorrectly to a statement in last year's address, about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. The president said Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium in Africa. He did not specifically mention the African country of Niger, though it was identified several weeks earlier — along with Somalia and Congo — in the National Intelligence Estimate provided to members of Congress on Iraqi purchase attempts.And.... An article on Saturday about Gen. Wesley K. Clark's difficulties in his first run for office quoted him as saying that a question about his Democratic credentials by the Fox News anchor Brit Hume at a debate on Thursday was "part of a Republican Party agenda." ... Because of an editing error, the article omitted a response by Fox News. Paul Schur, a spokesman for the network...As Powerline points out, "The funny thing about the Times' "editing errors" is that they all lean in the same direction." Hey, whatya know! What are the odds! That bias permeates more than just the NYT news and editorial departments. In Randy Cohen's "Everyday Ethics" column, this recently passed muster in response to a question about the ethics of marrying for access to health insurance.... We live in a country where more than 40 million people lack health insurance and thus reliable access to medical care. The solution to this problem is political reform, and so I hope you are working for that (if only by supporting candidates for public office who are).Well, the solution must be political. It couldn't possibly be personal, could it? Forget a "Public Editor". It seems to me the NYT could use Spin Editors, perhaps two bloggers - one left, one right - spinchecking every section of the paper. |