4 ms·

> In the New York Times about half of the things would be true and the other half false. What is one example of something the NYTs reported, that has since bee

> In the New York Times about half of the things would be true and the other half false. What is one example of something the NYTs reported, that has since been proven false but hasn't been retracted? (Not Iraq was examples, that was reporting on false intelligence not NYT providing the false info).

adolph 5y ago
> that was reporting on false intelligence not NYT providing the false info That’s a pretty amazing get out of jail free card.
- Fezzik 5y ago
  For what it’s worth, the flaws in the reporting related to the pre/post invasion involvement with Iraq were acknowledged: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-coverage https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-cov... There are many more related articles… The NYT has, to my knowledge, never avoided correcting fact-based inaccuracies or misreporting.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  No i've asked this question before, and that's always the response. NYT has come to terms with this mistakes in reporting on the build up to the war, that's not the same as publishing false information and refusing to acknowledge it. My attempt to get out in front of that common but misguided response failed, apparently. I guess i'll ask again, has the NYT ever published something false they have refused to correct once proven wrong?
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    They don't need to report anything false. It suffices to fail to report what is relevant and true. To their credit, they did report UN investigator Hans Blix's well-supported conclusion that there were no WMDs. On page 18. The NYT's preference for GWB in both elections was always front and center, and shameless. That the right wing imagined NYT was against them tells a lot about them.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Not Iraq was examples, that was reporting on false intelligence not NYT providing the false info No, the stuff Judith Miller was actively involved in manufacturing (and whose publication was controversial inside the paper even at the time) and laundering sources for (e.g., claiming propaganda she received from the Iraqi National Congress was intelligence gained by the military unit she was embedded in) was not merely “reporting on false intelligence”, though that's how Miller repeatedly tried to spin it after it destroyed her career as a credible journalist.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  Judith Miller was working with Bush Admin officials to push false information to justify war? Do you have a source for that claim ?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Judith Miller was working with Bush Admin officials to push false information to justify war? Maybe, but that's not what I said (the only group I said anything about her cooperating with non-overtly is the I.N.C.) She was definitely manufacturing and laundering pro-war propaganda, and she was fired when that became clear. And it certainly served the Bush Administration’s purposes. And the I.N.C. certainly was working hand-in-hand with the Administration on some things. But was Miller working with the Administration, or just on her own agenda that happened to align with theirs? Not for me to say.
    - fortuna86 5y ago
      Well that matters a lot. It's the difference between a conspiracy and messing up.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    The Bush admin only talked to journalists who would play their game. That was the lesson when he shunned all the majors until they agreed to toe the line.

adolph 5y ago

> that was reporting on false intelligence not NYT providing the false info That’s a pretty amazing get out of jail free card.

Fezzik 5y ago
For what it’s worth, the flaws in the reporting related to the pre/post invasion involvement with Iraq were acknowledged: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-coverage https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-cov... There are many more related articles… The NYT has, to my knowledge, never avoided correcting fact-based inaccuracies or misreporting.
fortuna86 5y ago
No i've asked this question before, and that's always the response. NYT has come to terms with this mistakes in reporting on the build up to the war, that's not the same as publishing false information and refusing to acknowledge it. My attempt to get out in front of that common but misguided response failed, apparently. I guess i'll ask again, has the NYT ever published something false they have refused to correct once proven wrong?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  They don't need to report anything false. It suffices to fail to report what is relevant and true. To their credit, they did report UN investigator Hans Blix's well-supported conclusion that there were no WMDs. On page 18. The NYT's preference for GWB in both elections was always front and center, and shameless. That the right wing imagined NYT was against them tells a lot about them.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Not Iraq was examples, that was reporting on false intelligence not NYT providing the false info No, the stuff Judith Miller was actively involved in manufacturing (and whose publication was controversial inside the paper even at the time) and laundering sources for (e.g., claiming propaganda she received from the Iraqi National Congress was intelligence gained by the military unit she was embedded in) was not merely “reporting on false intelligence”, though that's how Miller repeatedly tried to spin it after it destroyed her career as a credible journalist.

fortuna86 5y ago
Judith Miller was working with Bush Admin officials to push false information to justify war? Do you have a source for that claim ?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Judith Miller was working with Bush Admin officials to push false information to justify war? Maybe, but that's not what I said (the only group I said anything about her cooperating with non-overtly is the I.N.C.) She was definitely manufacturing and laundering pro-war propaganda, and she was fired when that became clear. And it certainly served the Bush Administration’s purposes. And the I.N.C. certainly was working hand-in-hand with the Administration on some things. But was Miller working with the Administration, or just on her own agenda that happened to align with theirs? Not for me to say.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    Well that matters a lot. It's the difference between a conspiracy and messing up.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  The Bush admin only talked to journalists who would play their game. That was the lesson when he shunned all the majors until they agreed to toe the line.