|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Another day, another NYTimes story that
Dec 18, 2020, 2:50 PM
|
|
wasn’t even remotely researched because the story was so good.
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/18/944594193/new-york-times-retracts-hit-podcast-series-caliphate-on-isis-executioner
“In the interview with NPR lasting nearly an hour, Baquet says the Times did not have evidence Chaudhry had ever been to Syria. Nor could it show he had joined ISIS, much less kill civilians for the group. The man's account proved to be riddled with holes and contradictions. Even when confronting some of them, the reporting and producing team sought ways to show his story could still turn out to be true.”
I mean...that’s just good story-telling. Sci-Fi fans do that all the time.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [34486]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13513
Joined: 8/30/19
|
Time to switch to GWP***
Dec 18, 2020, 2:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34092]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33592
Joined: 9/13/99
|
I almost posted this earlier.
Dec 18, 2020, 3:03 PM
|
|
It's a fantastic example of why the NY Times is superior to most other information sources.
Below is an article from the NY Times explaining the details of how wrong it was. That article is how I first found out about it. I didn't have to fact-check the NY Times; it fact-checked itself.
In fact, even the podcast (it was a podcast, not a news article) that got fooled by the bad source did an episode on the fact that the information was not reliable.
This is what you want from a media source. Everyone will get something wrong, everyone will get fooled once in a while. Everyone should consider their favorite media source and ask, what happens when they are wrong? Is there a mea culpa? Or is it ignored?
And P.S. this article is currently being published on the NYTimes homepage.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/business/media/new-york-times-caliphate-podcast.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11667
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: I almost posted this earlier.
Dec 18, 2020, 3:47 PM
|
|
Really intriguing. And it's not even behind a paywall - they're putting their shame up for all to see and owning their mistakes. Which is exactly what you're supposed to do. They even refuse to throw the reporter under the bus - even though she was the one who didn't catch the lies - and owned it as an "institutional failure" and then dissected, in exacting detail, what went wrong in their process and what they should have done.
Swarley is correct in that the Times clearly messed up, got played, and went with a bad source because he told a riveting story. But the way they owned it and broadcast their own mistake - you gotta respect that and it's why they're still a highly credible source. It'd surely be a cold day in Hades before you ever saw any Rupert Murdoch outlets except Wall Street Journal doing that, and the shamelessness of some of those rags just leaves me shaking my head sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17364
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Two years after it is released, wins a Peabody, is nominated
Dec 18, 2020, 8:29 PM
[ in reply to I almost posted this earlier. ] |
|
for a Pulitzer.
The criteria for holding these news outlets in esteem seems so low. They admit that they basically ignored or willfully tried to explain away inconsistencies. And TWO YEARS later they admit that they were too intrigued by the story to confirm if the guy had actually ever been in Syria. And for this you raise a glass to them.
I’m glad to know that this is the bar we set for great journalism, and look forward to the consistent application of this criteria across all media outlets. In the meantime, I assume everyone will respect my response of “bull####” to every NYT expose until the two year verification threshold has come and gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155581]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65689
Joined: 5/6/13
|
The world moves pretty fast man....
Dec 18, 2020, 11:12 PM
|
|
the old ways of doing old people stuff like verifying a story before going live with it are sooooooo 1990's. A "my bad" 750 days later is world-class stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34092]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33592
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Two years after it is released, wins a Peabody, is nominated
Dec 19, 2020, 7:53 AM
[ in reply to Two years after it is released, wins a Peabody, is nominated ] |
|
No, they should have caught it quicker, and they admit that. The great journalism is because of how amazingly rare an incident like this is at the Times.
What media source is superior, in your opinion?
Message was edited by: spooneye® b/c typo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11667
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Two years after it is released, wins a Peabody, is nominated
Dec 19, 2020, 8:08 AM
[ in reply to Two years after it is released, wins a Peabody, is nominated ] |
|
You're right, it's not good enough. The Times admits it isn't good enough either.
They also owned it, and did an extensive postmortem on what went wrong with their process and what they're going to do in the future to avoid similar mistakes.
And you're still going to sit here and wag your finger at them...and resume watching Fox, right? Sounds like great intellectual honesty, there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111292]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73649
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Two years after it is released, wins a Peabody, is nominated
Dec 19, 2020, 8:30 AM
[ in reply to Two years after it is released, wins a Peabody, is nominated ] |
|
the paper itself nominates(submits) the story for the Pulitzer, it is not selected by anyone and it would had to have been submitted he year it was published, not two years later. And as mentioned 2x on this thread, a lot of news publications would have swept their mistake under the rug, like Fox does on an almost weekly basis when they get something wrong.
humans make mistakes, The issue is whether or not you own up to them and make them right.
and there is not a more talented collection of writers anywhere. They recruit and employ the best and the brightest. iF you do not have a degree from Columbia, you have to work your way up the food chain at another major publication just to get an interview.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: I almost posted this earlier.
Dec 18, 2020, 11:53 PM
[ in reply to I almost posted this earlier. ] |
|
spoon,
not infallibility but accountability
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93604]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95382
Joined: 12/25/09
|
NYT admits they published fake news and...
Dec 19, 2020, 2:01 AM
[ in reply to I almost posted this earlier. ] |
|
that's why they aren't fake news? Rationalize much, bro?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34092]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33592
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Precisely.
Dec 19, 2020, 7:50 AM
|
|
Part of responsible journalism is acknowledging one's own mistakes. If your preferred news source never admits being wrong, then it's shoddy journalism because no one gets it right 100% of the time.
The NY Times not only admitted it was wrong, but it went into detail about what went wrong. That's taking responsibility for one's own actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93604]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95382
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I've read dozens of stories from the NYT with no...
Dec 20, 2020, 5:34 AM
|
|
verification research which only quoted 'unnamed sources,' or someone who wanted to remain anonymous.
One anonymous source said Trump insulted our honored dead in France and even with 17 named sources claiming that didn't happen you still believe what you want to believe. For years John Solomon told us that the Steele 'dossier,' was unverified but you guys dismissed him over one wrong article because you refuse to consider that he may have been right.
You have no respect for Sean Hannity who told you about the ill gotten FISA warrants knowing that the NYT, WAPO...and all the MSM lied to you about Trump being part of a Russian conspiracy to get him elected. So where the #### is Russia now? Reports say they meddled in this election but you've no complaints this time, right?
I've presented extremely good solid evidence that the election this year was rigged such as videos of republican poll watchers being thrown out of ballot counting area to the cheers of people wearing BLM gear and afterword people covering the windows so those outside couldn't see what they were doing. You ignore polling places shutdown at ~10-10:30 in Detroit, Atlanta, Philly and the other major cities while ballots were counted in the dark which resulted in poll dumps of hundreds of thousands of votes for Biden one of which was 96% for Joe and .4% for DJT but you have no curiosity to why or how that happened and accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist for pointing it out.
You are not ignorant, you just lack any sense of integrity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5641]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12116
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: Another day, another NYTimes story that
Dec 18, 2020, 5:59 PM
|
|
Yes, the NYT is the most respected fair and balanced organization in the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93604]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95382
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I'm still waiting on their corrections for all the...
Dec 19, 2020, 2:03 AM
|
|
hit pieces on Trump for the Russian Collusion Hoax.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34092]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33592
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: I'm still waiting on their corrections for all the...
Dec 19, 2020, 7:51 AM
|
|
Point out a falsehood and I'll show you a correction. The NY Times almost always gets it right, and admits it when they get it wrong.
If you're just trying to cast aspersions without evidence, then you can ignore this post. But I know you're better than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111292]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73649
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: I'm still waiting on their corrections for all the...
Dec 19, 2020, 10:06 AM
[ in reply to I'm still waiting on their corrections for all the... ] |
|
maybe you could provide us an example of where the NYT got it completely wrong on the Russian collusion story and we can find out if they corrected their error. But this requires your participation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
