THE NEW YORK TIMES: MISINFORMATION & SELECTIVE REPORTING

This one is for anybody who reads the New York Times and thinks he/she is getting an honest, complete, roundup of the news.

Here are two reasons you are wrong – just in the past 24 hours:

– 1) Yesterday the Times ran a front page story claiming that Republican House Minority Whip, Steve Scalise, “had appeared before a group called the European-American Unity and Rights Organization” – which, it turns out, was a group put together by the racist, anti-Semitic former ku klux klansman david duke.

But, as the day progressed, more information came out about that day, and sources from both the left and the right acknowledged that Mr. Scalise did not make a speech before that group, he spoke informally to a small group of people in the hotel that day – probably members of the group – before the convention took place.  You can read about it from no less anti-Republican a source than salon.com, by clicking here.

So the Times has corrected itself, right?  Put out some kind of apology, retraction, something, right?

From a story in today\’s edition – buried deep in the middle of the news section, not the front page – we have these first two paragraphs: 

DavidDuke seems a figure from the past, the former Klansman and whitesupremacist who two decades ago was almost elected Louisianagovernor.

Butthis week when Representative Steve Scalise, the third-ranking HouseRepublican leader, found himself trying to explain why he accepted aspeaking engagement offered by a key aide to Mr. Duke in 2002, it wasa reminder of the awkward dance and hard choices that Republicans inLouisiana faced in the 1990s when Mr. Duke was one of the mostcharismatic politicians in the state.

See that?  No apology.  No retraction.  Just a subtle changing of words (i.e. “a speaking engagement” rather than an appearance before the group) which most readers would never even notice.

Can anyone seriously describe this as honest journalism?

But wait, there\’s more.

– 2) Earlier in the week I wrote about the fact that New York City criminal court judge laura johnson had let two “men” who threatened police officers – one of whom assaulted an officer – out with no bail.   Today I blogged about the fact that, Mayor de blasio\’s claims to being sympathetic to the police force notwithstanding, he has just reappointed johnson to the bench anyway.

But the Times, which ran two lead editorials this week – this one  and this one – skewering the police department for its ill feeling toward de blasio while assuring us that de blasio did nothing to warrant such opprobrium, did not bother to report johnson\’s re-appointment.  Not one word in today\’s paper, even as The New York Post and New York Daily News give it full-story status. 

Obviously the story was fully available.  Therefore the Times proactively decided not to report it.  Why?  Maybe because the re-appointment of judge johnson flew in the face of their editorial position?

Asking Times readers:  do you still think you are getting the honest, complete news from your paper of choice?

If so, I truly pity you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *