Wavels
Well-Known Member
Here are some interesting developments which in all likelihood will not be covered by the MSM!
Wavels
December 31, 2006 The New York Times' own Rathergate
Thomas Lifson
[FONT=times new roman,times]Byron Calame, public editor of the New York Times, has laid out a carefully worded exposé[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] of the utter breakdown of editorial standards at the New York Times. The fact that paper prominently published a falsehood is only the beginning of the problem. When the falsehood was exposed, two senior editors of the paper issued a defense of the article without bothering to check the readily available court documents which critics had cited. Based on this negligent defense, the newspaper's publisher, Pinch Sulzberger, has rebutted critics who have written in.
[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Worst of all, even after the proof of the lie, the paper's editor and publisher refuse to publish a correction or even an editor's note. The paper is therefore content to let the lie stand, officially. If it were interested in honest reporting, it would be duty-bound to issue a retraction, one as prominent as the original lie.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]This situation is functionally equivalent to the behavior of Dan Rather, who has never admitted that the Texas Air National Guard memorandum he broadcast about George W. Bush is a forgery. Of course, Dan Rather eventually lost his job. The miscreants at the New York Times, standards editor (!) Craig Whitney and New York Times Magazine editor Gerald Marzorati, continue in their jobs. And publisher Pinch Sulzberger blissfully continues to occupy the top job he inherited as scion of the family which controls the corporation, despite owning less than 10% of its shares, thanks to a dual class system of electing directors.[/FONT]
Here is what happened:
American Thinker Blog: The New York Times' own Rathergate
related piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/opinion/31pubed.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
More fibbing as follows:
The Times Lies About Enemy Combatant Law [Andy McCarthy]
The Times is flat dishonest in its campaign against subjecting enemy combatants to military proceedings, which the Grey Lady passes off as a page-one news article. Correspondent Tim Golden writes:
First, the law that governs these detainees is not the Military Commissions Act that President Bush signed in October. As that act makes clear, the review of Combatant Status Review Tribunals is actually governed by a law the president signed a year earlier, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 specifically, Section 1005 of that law.
entire article
The Corner on National Review Online
Wavels
December 31, 2006 The New York Times' own Rathergate
Thomas Lifson
[FONT=times new roman,times]Byron Calame, public editor of the New York Times, has laid out a carefully worded exposé[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] of the utter breakdown of editorial standards at the New York Times. The fact that paper prominently published a falsehood is only the beginning of the problem. When the falsehood was exposed, two senior editors of the paper issued a defense of the article without bothering to check the readily available court documents which critics had cited. Based on this negligent defense, the newspaper's publisher, Pinch Sulzberger, has rebutted critics who have written in.
[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Worst of all, even after the proof of the lie, the paper's editor and publisher refuse to publish a correction or even an editor's note. The paper is therefore content to let the lie stand, officially. If it were interested in honest reporting, it would be duty-bound to issue a retraction, one as prominent as the original lie.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]This situation is functionally equivalent to the behavior of Dan Rather, who has never admitted that the Texas Air National Guard memorandum he broadcast about George W. Bush is a forgery. Of course, Dan Rather eventually lost his job. The miscreants at the New York Times, standards editor (!) Craig Whitney and New York Times Magazine editor Gerald Marzorati, continue in their jobs. And publisher Pinch Sulzberger blissfully continues to occupy the top job he inherited as scion of the family which controls the corporation, despite owning less than 10% of its shares, thanks to a dual class system of electing directors.[/FONT]
Here is what happened:
American Thinker Blog: The New York Times' own Rathergate
related piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/opinion/31pubed.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
More fibbing as follows:
The Times Lies About Enemy Combatant Law [Andy McCarthy]
The Times is flat dishonest in its campaign against subjecting enemy combatants to military proceedings, which the Grey Lady passes off as a page-one news article. Correspondent Tim Golden writes:
Under a law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in October, this double-wide trailer may be as close to a courtroom as most Guantánamo prisoners ever get. The law prohibits them from challenging their detention or treatment by writs of habeas corpus in the federal courts. Instead, they may only petition a single federal appeals court to examine whether the review boards followed the militarys own procedures in reviewing their status as enemy combatants. [Emphasis added.]
It's hard to quantify how inaccurate (and, one is compelled to conclude, disingenuous) this is.
First, the law that governs these detainees is not the Military Commissions Act that President Bush signed in October. As that act makes clear, the review of Combatant Status Review Tribunals is actually governed by a law the president signed a year earlier, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 specifically, Section 1005 of that law.
entire article
The Corner on National Review Online