NY Times Explains Errors
By Don | August 4, 2009
The New York Times public editor conducted a self examination after seven errors appeared in a single article recently.
From the New York Times
THE TIMES published an especially embarrassing correction on July 22, fixing seven errors in a single article — an appraisal of Walter Cronkite, the CBS anchorman famed for his meticulous reporting. The newspaper had wrong dates for historic events; gave incorrect information about Cronkite’s work, his colleagues and his program’s ratings; misstated the name of a news agency, and misspelled the name of a satellite.
“Wow,” said Arthur Cooper, a reader from Manhattan. “How did this happen?”
The short answer is that a television critic with a history of errors wrote hastily and failed to double-check her work, and editors who should have been vigilant were not.
But a more nuanced answer is that even a newspaper like The Times, with layers of editing to ensure accuracy, can go off the rails when communication is poor, individuals do not bear down hard enough, and they make assumptions about what others have done. Five editors read the article at different times, but none subjected it to rigorous fact-checking, even after catching two other errors in it. And three editors combined to cause one of the errors themselves.
The Times is not alone when it comes to sloppy reporting. As papers have cut back staff and tried in vain to compete on internet time they have found themselves publishing stories that have not been proof read or fact checked at all leading to far more errors than before.
What is interesting with the Cronkite story is that Hoyt said that it was written by someone who has a history of errors. And yet the editors neglected to review her story with a fine tooth comb. Also if Stanley has a history of errors why is she still employed by the Times? What does that say about their standards?
Post #2231
11 Comments | Post a Comment
glhadley,
I would have loved to see that done, wow…what a law suit that would have been.
It would be my guess that a reporter (if there is such a thing in the Times) lifted another Daily Kos blog and published it as hers. It certainly would not be the first time they have been guilty of lifting blogs as news, although it has been proved on several occasions.
As for the MSM’s biased articles in both print and television, these will one day come back to haunt them.
Alessandra Stanley was named chief television critic for The New York Times in 2003. Before that, she was a foreign correspondent for the newspaper, serving as Rome bureau chief (1998-2001) and co-chief of the Moscow bureau (1994-1998). She has also covered national politics and metropolitan news for the Times. Ms. Stanley has served as a writer and correspondent for Time, working in Paris, Los Angeles, New York, and finally, Washington, D.C., covering The White House and presidential campaigns. While at Time, she reported from Central America, Afghanistan, Asia and Africa. She has also written for The New York Times Magazine, The New Republic, GQ and Vogue. Born in Boston, MA, Ms. Stanley grew up in Washington, D.C. and Europe, and studied literature at Harvard University. She lives in New York City with her daughter.
... and she’s white.
RMJ711
If she is white (and presumably heterosexual without any other strange attributes that would qualify her for protected status), then there is one other method used by females (esp. attractive females) to progress where competence (and ability to fact check pieces that one writes) don’t count?
Is she good looking? Does she have (or has had) male “friends” at the Times and Time, New Republic, GQ, and/or Vogue or another highly-placed male “friend” who could have interceded for her?
I am still looking for the answer to the question raised in the original article “Also if Stanley has a history of errors why is she still employed by the Times?”
Yeah, she’s pretty (blonde) and mid- to late-30s, I’d guess. (Look her up in Google Images.)
What struck me was her apparent descent from international correspondent - Moscow Dpty. Bureau Chief, White House corr., etc. to TV critic. Perhaps she’s always had a reputation for sloppiness and got demoted, or she sought a less responsible position that allowed her to stay “home” (NY) with her kid.
You’re going to have to research her personal liaisons within the Times for yourself. Good luck, and report back.
I might say she had been pretty at one time and I’d guess her older than late-30s, esp. if she was a Moscow bureau chief 15 years ago.
I see others (gawker.com) are suggesting a third option that she has a picture of Bill Keller with a goat (or equivalent.)
Why is she still employed at ANY paper of general circulation? If they have her blunders documented, they shouldn’t be worried about lawsuits.
Jury finds ex-congressman guilty on 11 counts
“Former U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, a Harvard-educated lawyer who grew up in one of the poorest regions in the country to serve 18 years in Congress, was convicted Wednesday of 11 counts of public corruption.
A federal jury found Jefferson guilty of bribery, conspiracy, fraud, money laundering and racketeering. The panel agreed with prosecutors that Jefferson used his office to orchestrate a criminal enterprise that spanned two continents.
U.S. Justice Department officials called the conviction critical to the fight against public corruption.”
He got 150 years to run concurrently with the highest sentence of 20 years, he was facing up to 245 years.
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/politics/52566932.html
Would that not also apply to about two thirds or more of our entire US Government right now?
But then again, we have Eric Holder, and the Judiciary is lead by partisan liberals, who should go after Dodd, Frank, almost all the Czars…When I am done, I will post the dirt and corruption I am finding on these Czars.
As for the Times, they did fire Jayson Blair, but yet they have let others stay, some of whom have done worse. They need to go after Krugman, too.
Your naive and mistaken assumption is that the New York Times intends to report truthfully.
Look carefully and note, please, that their heads are oriented in a colonoscopic attitude.
Reportedly it is extremely difficult to perceive accurately from such positioning.Given the narcissistic attitude common to the Liberal, such find themselves necessarily focused on the anal, and oblivious to the real world.
I got it! Maybe they did fire her, then rehired her so that the times could claim that they created a job!
What you will be seeing soon if not already is much like what caused the Great Depression.
The Markets will rise, more and more investors will be trading. The economy will improve, and jobless claims will go down a point, or perhaps two points. But this will be short term.
That will be the calm before the storm. Obama PROMISED no one making less than #250,000 per year (including joint filings). But there have already been taxes levied. But two things will cause taxes on the Middle Class, if Cap and Trade passes, there will be a gasoline tax by no more than .63 cents per gallon, Energy tax, Charitable Donation write offs have already been cancelled, and so on. Utility bills will double or triple.
The other scenario is, if he allows the Bush Tax cuts expire, the middle class will be hit hard. That will increase taxes by elimination of the Tax Cuts.
Already tax revenues have decreased by more than 23%, a good porting of that number will increase as more and more businesses begin layoffs again, the 79% of small businesses have been forced to close their doors, perhaps our largest employers are now gone.
Hundreds of thousands of workers have been asking for voluntary pay cuts to stay under the limit of $250,000, and will take another pay cut if the rate goes down to $200,000 per year. Why, it is cheaper to lose that money if Cap and Trade passes.
The Government is also losing money with homes being revalued to below market prices, which includes mortgaged and paid off homes. That alone has cost the Government Billions of dollars.
August 4 at 12:21 pm | #1 | Link
In a case like this, would it be newsworthy to mention her race, her sexual orientation, and any other layers of protection that she would be granted by the politically correct NYT?