• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

NYTs Does it Again...

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A few days ago, the New York Times published a page 1 story on Abu Ghraib on the same day that it published a story on page 8 about the murder of a hostage, who, as the Times reported the next day on page 10, was apparently tortured before being slain. Yesterday the Times reports its Abu Ghraib story may have been fake:

"The online magazine Salon is challenging the identity of a man profiled by The New York Times in a front-page article on Saturday who says he is the iconic hooded figure in a published photograph who was abused by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 and 2004.

Salon bases its challenge on an examination of a set of 280 Abu Ghraib photographs it has been studying for several weeks and an interview with an official of the Army's Criminal Investigation Command, known as the C.I.D., who says the man identified by The Times is not the detainee in the photograph.

On Monday, Chris Grey, chief spokesman for the investigations unit, asked about the challenge, confirmed to The Times in an e-mail message: "We have had several detainees claim they were the person depicted in the photograph in question. Our investigation indicates that the person you have is not the detainee who was depicted in the photograph released in connection with the Abu Ghraib investigation."


The story raising doubts about the page 1 story appeared on page 17.

Source.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Clearly The Times has it's priorities. Sad.
 

Blue Collar Joe

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
350
Reaction score
0
Location
USA Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And who is surprised by this? The Times is anything but an honest paper. It is an OpEd Paper, and not worth the price.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,100
Reaction score
8,361
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Blue Collar Joe said:
And who is surprised by this? The Times is anything but an honest paper. It is an OpEd Paper, and not worth the price.
After the way it let itself be shamelessly pimped for the pro-war movement it's hard to see it the same way as before.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Simon W. Moon said:
After the way it let itself be shamelessly pimped for the pro-war movement it's hard to see it the same way as before.
That it definitely did do.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I still love the New York Times! xoxoxoxooxoxoox
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
Clearly The Times has it's priorities. Sad.
Clearly it does. To sell newspaper. Take your beef to the American public who clearly want to buy it.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kelzie said:
Clearly it does. To sell newspaper. Take your beef to the American public who clearly want to buy it.
People buy it because it is apparently the source of all news in this country anyways.

Remember how many of Jayson Blair's phony stories got mindlessly regurgitated all across the country? All those media outlets weren't getting their stories from anywhere but the Times...obviously, because they were fabricated.

Mainstream, reasonable people see their extreme bias and the fact that they haven't endorsed a single Republican since Ike as a red flag. And mainstream America doesn't buy the paper. The NYT customer base largely consists of a lot of coastal state liberals and people who need to know what the media is going to be regurgitating next.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
aquapub said:
People buy it because it is apparently the source of all news in this country anyways.

Remember how many of Jayson Blair's phony stories got mindlessly regurgitated all across the country? All those media outlets weren't getting their stories from anywhere but the Times...obviously, because they were fabricated.

Mainstream, reasonable people see their extreme bias and the fact that they haven't endorsed a single Republican since Ike as a red flag. And mainstream America doesn't buy the paper, just a lot of coastal state liberals and people who need to know what the media is going to be regurgitating next.
So what's the problem then?
 

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Kelzie said:
So what's the problem then?
They still have a responsibility to be objective.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
mpg said:
They still have a responsibility to be objective.
Says who? It's a private company that sells good purchased by individuals. There is nothing that says they have to be objective.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Kelzie said:
Says who? It's a private company that sells good purchased by individuals. There is nothing that says they have to be objective.

I agree.
Its a rag of falsehoods and should be advertised as such.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
akyron said:
I agree.
Its a rag of falsehoods and should be advertised as such.
I'm not...entirely...sure that advertising as a "rag of falsehoods" would be beneficial to their subscription amounts.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Kelzie said:
I'm not...entirely...sure that advertising as a "rag of falsehoods" would be beneficial to their subscription amounts.

I dont know.

Since the enquirer started to run "true" stories they have gone downhill. NYT is on the right sales track.

"One would think that the Enquirer's discovery of accurate journalism would have elevated its reputation. Instead, the tabloid is regarded slightly worse today than it was in 1985, according to a new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Respondents were asked to rate news organizations on a 1-to-4 scale, with 1 representing "I believe all or most" of what the news organization says and 4 representing "I believe almost nothing." Only 4 percent of the polled group believed all or most of what the Enquirer says, and a whopping 61 percent believed nothing. Back in June 1985, a similar Pew survey found that 4 percent believed all or most of what the Enquirer said, and 54 percent believed almost nothing. "


I guess lies will always sell better than truth.
 
Top Bottom