NY Slimes at it again.

[Bryan]

Oh come on, that's ridiculous. They were former staffers who insisted on anonymity. There isn't a responsible newspaper in the world that wouldn't use the information.

You're the expert.

Avoidance of anonymous sources if possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

NEW YORK (AP) — Editors at about one in four newspapers who responded to a survey say they never allow reporters to quote anonymous sources, and most others have policies designed to limit the practice. One editor said his paper's rules are so strict they would have disqualified Deep Throat as a source.

http://www.apme.com/news/2005/060805anonymous.shtml

And the other key point where the Times' story flunked:

Competing points of view are balanced and fairly characterized.

(Suppression of Weaver account)

[Guest Patriot]

Your guess, like everything else would be wrong. I will tell that I am 45 yrs old and have already done my hitch in the service.

Now what have you got?

I was a 1st. Lt. /Marines I seriously doubt you were in the military, your leftist mentality

is a giveaway.

[Guest Guest]

Just shut up, punk. You never, ever have anything of value to say. Mature adults don't care for your stupid one-liners and projected fantasies. No one cares. No one. The only person you find agreeing with you is your alter-ego and Mr. Sentient Rocks. This is not a coincidence. Make something of your miserable life.

True patriots are disgusted by you. You probably never even served.

True Patriot ??? Make me laugh, cupcake.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Today's Washington Post reports that John McCain wrote a letter to the FCC in November of 1999, stating that he expected the commissioners "to advise me in writing no later than the close of business Tuesday, December 14, 1999" of what it intended to do about the Paxson deal. In response, FCC Chairman William E. Kennard wrote back, noting that McCain's letter "comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process" on the issue. Former Commissioner Gloria Tristani puts it more bluntly, stating that the communication was offensive: "It's just not proper. It's like going to a court and saying 'Tell us before it is final how you voted.'"

How improper was McCain's involvement? What effect did his sexual attraction to Iseman have?

We'll find out, won't we? Oh, what fun this is going to be!

Oh, by the way, righties, are we having fun yet?

Our fun starts in Nov. , how sweet it will be.

[Guest Keith]

I was a 1st. Lt. /Marines I seriously doubt you were in the military, your leftist mentality

is a giveaway.

Army E5 Seargent, last post Fort Rucker, Al. I worked with choppers. I would like to know, specifically what makes me a leftist in your eyes. I applaud your Marine service, what was your MOS?. Maybe you could convince Bryan to do his part in the military.

[Guest Guest]

True Patriot ??? Make me laugh, cupcake.

......................****

....................,*****

.................../..../

............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸

........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\

........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')

.........\.................'...../

..........''...\.......... _.·´

............\..............(

..............\.............\

[Guest Truth Squad]

The Truth Fairy needs a little help whittling down his post to its proper length:

The Boston Globe (same ownership as the Times) and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer weren't willing to make that bet.

The Globe went with a more balanced and credible Washington Post story on the subject instead of the Gray Lady's version.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...armed_advisers/

I chose not to run the New York Times story on John McCain in Thursday's P-I, even though it was available to us on the New York Times News Service. I thought I'd take a shot at explaining why.

To me, the story had serious flaws. It did not convincingly make the case that McCain either had an affair with a lobbyist, or was improperly influenced by her. It used a raft of unnamed sources to assert that members of McCain's campaign staff -- not this campaign but his campaign eight years ago -- were concerned about the amount of time McCain was spending with the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. They were worried about the appearance of a close bond between the two of them.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigb...ives/132415.asp

If there were more to the story then the Times probably would have gotten more than it got in three months.

There's no "there" there. But I guess some of you leftists will prefer the audacity of hoping otherwise.

I'll take the bet with the Truth Fairy. If I win, the Truth Fairy has to stop using sock puppets at KOTW.

Keep your eyes on the papers. Not that what they say will matter to you.

[Guest Guest]

I was a 1st. Lt. /Marines I seriously doubt you were in the military, your leftist mentality

is a giveaway.

What unit?

[Guest Truth Squad]

You're the expert.

Avoidance of anonymous sources if possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

NEW YORK (AP) — Editors at about one in four newspapers who responded to a survey say they never allow reporters to quote anonymous sources, and most others have policies designed to limit the practice. One editor said his paper's rules are so strict they would have disqualified Deep Throat as a source.

http://www.apme.com/news/2005/060805anonymous.shtml

And the other key point where the Times' story flunked:

Competing points of view are balanced and fairly characterized.

(Suppression of Weaver account)

Exactly. Watergate would never have been exposed. You can argue for the stricter rule, but the fact is that 75% of newspapers do use anonymous sources, according to what you just cited. That hardly qualifies as grounds to flunk the Times.

The fact also is that a good reporter, exercising judgment about which sources are reliable and which are not, will get it right most of the time. The test is whether the information is sufficiently reliable. Over time, a newspaper gains a reputation, positive or negative, for reliability and newsworthiness. The New York Times has among the highest of reputations on both counts of any newspaper in the world. From what I see in the follow-up stories so far, they have confidence in the story, and are adding detail to it.

The number of sources also makes a difference. In this case, the Times cited "sources" from the McCain campaign, indicating more than one person in a position to know. Their number and position were verifiable by the reporter.

Oh, and are you sure the article from Wikipedia wasn't referring to anonymous sources in the sense that the reporter does not know who they are - for example, gets a note in the mail signed "A friend." In this case, the Times reporter knows who they are.

You see only what you want to see, Bryan - all the time. For you, if the Times published it and it hurts someone you think is on your side politically, then the Times was wrong. You're not objective, which is why you make ridiculous statements like the one about sentient rocks. You let the argument govern your view of the facts instead of letting the facts take you to the right side of the argument.

[Guest Truth Squad]

......................****

....................,*****

.................../..../

............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸

........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\

........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')

.........\.................'...../

..........''...\.......... _.·´

............\..............(

..............\.............\

Helluva job you did editing that.

Guys, a censor usually cuts the frame somewhere above the pubic hair.

[Guest 2smart4u]

......................****

....................,*****

.................../..../

............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸

........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\

........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')

.........\.................'...../

..........''...\.......... _.·´

............\..............(

..............\.............\

The NY Slimes would call this brilliant, thought-provoking and well intentioned.

[Guest Guest]

NEW YORK (AP) — Editors at about one in four newspapers who responded to a survey say they never allow reporters to quote anonymous sources, and most others have policies designed to limit the practice. One editor said his paper's rules are so strict they would have disqualified Deep Throat as a source.

And most doctors won’t perform brain surgery. The Times, which has the best reporters in the world, can afford to give them more leeway. In addition, because they are The New York Times, their reporters have access to better, more highly placed and more reliable sources, and more of them. You may not like the fact that the Times’ history and reputation have gained it that degree of respect and cooperation, but it is a fact.

Occasionally the Times will make mistakes, just like brain surgeons do. But on balance they’re going to report more useful news in more detail than other papers --- in other words, will be a go-to newspaper for people who really want to know what is going on --- and on balance brain surgeons are going to save and improve lives.

Why not admit what your complaint is really about: the story damages your side’s case.

[Guest Guest]

Our fun starts in Nov. , how sweet it will be.

2dim posted at 3:59

“Guest” posted in agreement at 4:05

PatRat posted in agreement at 4:07

It’s either the same person or a very peculiar pot party.

[Bryan]

Keep your eyes on the papers. Not that what they say will matter to you.

Heh.

The Truth Fairy:

Oh come on, that's ridiculous. They were former staffers who insisted on anonymity. There isn't a responsible newspaper in the world that wouldn't use the information.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=83023

Clark Hoyt, public editor for The New York Times:

But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/...nyt&emc=rss

There's the predicted apology from the Times, courtesy of the paper's public editor, complete with the obligatory assurance that minus the sexual innuendo it really was a solid story.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82961

The Truth Fairy will now prove that he is not a hypocrite by acknowledging Hoyt's column.

Right?

[Guest Guest]

Our fun starts in Nov. , how sweet it will be.

Democrats are breaking voter turnout records by factors of two, three, sometimes even four all over the place. Even in a state that usually doesn't make any difference (Hawaii), it's happening--the record was 4,000, and we got THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND voting in those primaries. How many turnout records have the Replubicans broken? And by how much?

America is sick of the neocons' crap.

I'll be sure to take your claim of victory as being as likely as the Guiliani claim.

[Guest 2smart4u]

The NY Slimes own Ombudsman has criticized the Slimes for running a "deceitful" article on McCain.

That's the first bit of truth to come out of that leftist rag in about 10 years.

[Bryan]

Exactly. Watergate would never have been exposed.

That doesn't follow, unless you omnipotently know that Watergate wouldn't have been exposed through other means.

And as Clark Hoyt pointed out, the suspicions of anonymous staffers shouldn't be enough to publish a story that carries a mere innuendo of an illicit sexual affair. In short, this is nothing like Watergate.

You can argue for the stricter rule, but the fact is that 75% of newspapers do use anonymous sources, according to what you just cited. That hardly qualifies as grounds to flunk the Times.

Look at the Truth Fairy, reduced already to constructing a straw man.

It isn't the mere use of anonymous sources. It's the fact that the story doesn't say anything important that required the use of anonymous sources, the fact that the story amounts to innuendo, and the location of the story (front page) in consideration of the first two weaknesses. Compare the Washington Post version.

And then start actually paying attention to the criticism the Times is receiving from the journalistic community.

The fact also is that a good reporter, exercising judgment about which sources are reliable and which are not, will get it right most of the time.

And being right most of the time is plenty good enough for the New York Times.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I'm sure they're honored to have you arguing their side.

The test is whether the information is sufficiently reliable. Over time, a newspaper gains a reputation, positive or negative, for reliability and newsworthiness. The New York Times has among the highest of reputations on both counts of any newspaper in the world. From what I see in the follow-up stories so far, they have confidence in the story, and are adding detail to it.

We haven't had a blowhard at KOTW like this since Paul LaClair retired.

The number of sources also makes a difference. In this case, the Times cited "sources" from the McCain campaign, indicating more than one person in a position to know. Their number and position were verifiable by the reporter.

Oh, and are you sure the article from Wikipedia wasn't referring to anonymous sources in the sense that the reporter does not know who they are - for example, gets a note in the mail signed "A friend." In this case, the Times reporter knows who they are.

You're the supposed expert. You tell me.

You see only what you want to see, Bryan - all the time. For you, if the Times published it and it hurts someone you think is on your side politically, then the Times was wrong. You're not objective, which is why you make ridiculous statements like the one about sentient rocks. You let the argument govern your view of the facts instead of letting the facts take you to the right side of the argument.

Why, if I only see the things I want to see, was I dead on about the Times issuing an apology (through the public editor, Clark Hoyt)?

What have you been correct about so far? Maybe you should go with the Twizzler sock puppet for awhile.

[Guest Truth Squad]

That doesn't follow, unless you omnipotently know that Watergate wouldn't have been exposed through other means.

And as Clark Hoyt pointed out, the suspicions of anonymous staffers shouldn't be enough to publish a story that carries a mere innuendo of an illicit sexual affair. In short, this is nothing like Watergate.

Look at the Truth Fairy, reduced already to constructing a straw man.

It isn't the mere use of anonymous sources. It's the fact that the story doesn't say anything important that required the use of anonymous sources, the fact that the story amounts to innuendo, and the location of the story (front page) in consideration of the first two weaknesses. Compare the Washington Post version.

And then start actually paying attention to the criticism the Times is receiving from the journalistic community.

And being right most of the time is plenty good enough for the New York Times.

Why, if I only see the things I want to see, was I dead on about the Times issuing an apology (through the public editor, Clark Hoyt)?

What have you been correct about so far? Maybe you should go with the Twizzler sock puppet for awhile.

Hoyt didn't apologize. He expressed a different opinion, related only to the part of the story that related to sex. That still leaves us with unseemly ties to lobbyists, inappropriate attempts to influence the FCC and the fact that McCain's own staff pulled this woman off him because they didn't trust him.

If it's nothing to worry about, then why are you worrying about it?

[Guest Guest]

2dim posted at 3:59

“Guest” posted in agreement at 4:05

PatRat posted in agreement at 4:07

It’s either the same person or a very peculiar pot party.

Yeah, posts don't even get approved that quickly. I'm guessing the former.

[Guest Kearny Republican]

The NY Slimes would call this brilliant, thought-provoking and well intentioned.

Excellent !

[Guest 2smart4u]

And most doctors won’t perform brain surgery. The Times, which has the best reporters in the world, can afford to give them more leeway. In addition, because they are The New York Times, their reporters have access to better, more highly placed and more reliable sources, and more of them. You may not like the fact that the Times’ history and reputation have gained it that degree of respect and cooperation, but it is a fact.

Occasionally the Times will make mistakes, just like brain surgeons do. But on balance they’re going to report more useful news in more detail than other papers --- in other words, will be a go-to newspaper for people who really want to know what is going on --- and on balance brain surgeons are going to save and improve lives.

Why not admit what your complaint is really about: the story damages your side’s case.

You are incredibly misinformed. Slimes profits in '07 were 50% less than '06, their circulation is down by a third over the last 4 years. Slimes reputation is in the dumper where Obama is going in Nov.

[Guest Melanie]

Hoyt didn't apologize. He expressed a different opinion, related only to the part of the story that related to sex. That still leaves us with unseemly ties to lobbyists, inappropriate attempts to influence the FCC and the fact that McCain's own staff pulled this woman off him because they didn't trust him.

If it's nothing to worry about, then why are you worrying about it?

Hoyt also pointed out that this was an important story without the sex component, essentially for the reasons pointed out by Truth Squad. People can attack the Times if they like - right will anyway - and the criticism has merit, but so does the Times' defense. McCain's own staffers thought there was a romantic relationship. Members of the public can know that, know also that there's no proof of sexual indiscretion, know that his staff didn't trust him to control himself, and make up their own minds.

Most people seem to say the Times shouldn't have run the sex aspect of the story without more evidence. That's a good point, but in the end, the public will be better served the way the Times did it, especially considering how quickly people rushed to McCain's defense.

What he and we are left with is that he's going to have to confront and address the improper influence issues. The information behind that is relevant for the public to know.

[Bryan]

Hoyt didn't apologize.

Slicing it with a microtome these days, eh?

1. to offer an apology or excuse for some fault, insult, failure, or injury: He apologized for accusing her falsely.

2. to make a formal defense in speech or writing.

Hoyt apologized in both senses of the term. He admitted fault, and attempted an explanation.

Other than Twizzler and P.L., who's more pathetic than you?

He expressed a different opinion, related only to the part of the story that related to sex.

Well, if you want to spin it that way ...

I asked Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, if The Times could have done the story and left out the allegation about an affair. “That would not have reflected the essential truth of why the aides were alarmed,” she said.

(...)

But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed.

Poor Truth Fairy. He attempts to prove he's not a hypocrite and proves the exact opposite.

That still leaves us with unseemly ties to lobbyists,

Could you be specific, minus the part that the NYT public editor apologized over?

inappropriate attempts to influence the FCC

Old news reported in full near the time it happened, and ruled an inadvertent miscue. Unless you have uncovered new evidence Mr. IKNOWSABOUTDELAW?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all

and the fact that McCain's own staff pulled this woman off him because they didn't trust him.

You're relying on the anonymous reports again. The responsible versions of the story (as corroborated by the Weaver account) suggest that McCain's people did not like the way Iseman presented herself.

Face it, Truth Fairy. Hoyt took you out at the knees. If you weren't a jerk you'd have enjoyed a crow hors d'oeuvres and offered me my due.

Instead you went into spin mode.

If it's nothing to worry about, then why are you worrying about it?

So you want to exchange my concern over a major U.S. daily demonstrating a willingness to publish gossip for a concern over the McCain story itself? Typical of you. And similar to somebody else.

[Bryan]

Hoyt also pointed out that this was an important story without the sex component, essentially for the reasons pointed out by Truth Squad.

Yes, isn't the Truth Fairy wonderful?

I linked the more balanced version of the story (minus the innuendo) before Truth Squad even acknowledged Hoyt's column.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=83043

You never answered my question, Melanie, you little liar.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82646

People can attack the Times if they like - right will anyway - and the criticism has merit, but so does the Times' defense. McCain's own staffers thought there was a romantic relationship. Members of the public can know that, know also that there's no proof of sexual indiscretion, know that his staff didn't trust him to control himself, and make up their own minds.

The NYT did not provide the public with enough information to properly make up its mind. They spiked the report from the staffer willing to go on the record (Weaver) because it would have undermined the story they wanted to tell from the anonymous staffers.

So you get the smear on page one, and the rest of the facts coming out in dribs and drabs buried deeper in the paper later on.

That's why we love the newspaper of record so very much.

Most people seem to say the Times shouldn't have run the sex aspect of the story without more evidence. That's a good point, but in the end, the public will be better served the way the Times did it, especially considering how quickly people rushed to McCain's defense.

Meh. Folks like the Truth Fairy will remain convinced that the Times has got proof that McCain had sex with Iseman. Because they have great reporters and they're right most of the time.

I wonder if the Truth Fairy has even heard of Jayson Blair?

What he and we are left with is that he's going to have to confront and address the improper influence issues. The information behind that is relevant for the public to know.

Old news. Maybe the Times will remind us of that great story from 2000 again in November.

[Guest Guest]

You are incredibly misinformed. Slimes profits in '07 were 50% less than '06,

"Excluding write-downs and asset sales, operating profit last year [2007] was $267 million, down from $280 million the year before."

Liar.

their circulation is down by a third over the last 4 years.

2003 Circulation: 1,676,885

2007 Ciculation: 1,627,062

Let's see, a third is 33.3%, yet the difference is actually 2.9%. No one believes a thing you say, and this is why, punk liar.

How about you cite a "rightist" (in your opinion) newspaper whose circulation is higher than it was four years ago, hmm?

Slimes reputation is in the dumper where Obama is going in Nov.

Just like Guiliani was going to the White House?