Tuesday, February 01, 2005

To Mike

Re: No Bias Here

The bias is in the original reporting. They had to run a correction because they originally reported that he was impeached for having an affair. For that to get published in the first place it had to be something the writer believed and two (or more) editors along with their vaunted fact checking staff signed off on.

Check out their corrections sometime. They pride themselves on fact checking the tiniest nitpicky detail, and show that pride by corrected the tiniest nitpicky detail when they find an error (see below). But something sizable like a presidential impeachment glides right by because it fits the beliefs of the folks at the NYT.

Here is an example of a typical NYT correction:

An article in...misspelled the given name of the United States attorney in Brooklyn, who brought the charges. She is Roslynn R. Mauskopf, not Roslyn.

But given the fact that you give the ACLU a pass when they blatently edit the first amendment, I wouldn't expect you to notice.


Blogger Tolles said...

That makes more sense now, although your accusation of bias is silly.

Clearly, the affair was the whole sub-rosa reason for the impeachment. That's also what sticks out in people's memories. Even so, the impeachment articles were for perjury and obstruction of justice, not "an affair" so the article should reflect that. Duely noted. Seems more like a case of sloppiness than bias.

Thanks, I know what a NYT correction looks like. I didn't grow up reading the Des Moines Register.

Let me know when Kel Mehlman sends out his next fax-blast urging conservatives to rear up on their hind legs over gay cartoon characters or bias on sesame street or some such nonsense.

12:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on Blogwise