Unfortunately the Grey Lady has been in a steady decline for years. This is just another sad and sickening example.

This is just another sad and sickening example.

Very sickening!

i would want to see what the times actually said, but that aside,,,if the facts you report are accurate and she killed the baby after birth, it's just sickening.

would want to see what the times actually said, but that aside,,,if the facts you report are accurate and she killed the baby after birth, it's just sickening.

Good enough.  Google "Carmen Climaco" (in quotes).  The El Salvadorian docket is a matter of record.  I just pulled one link, but there are many, and El Salvador is forthcoming with their records (in Spanish of course).

I grew up in New york as you know and remember when the logo on the front page of the times was "all the news that's fit to print" was their motto. The NYT was the best news paper in the entire country. Not anymore, now it has as much veracity as the national enquirer.

Not anymore, now it has as much veracity as the national enquirer.

I hold the NE higher.  At least they start with the truth.

where is the article doc - the link was about donations.


So how come they are standing by their story if the facts have proven them wrong? What are they gaining by doing this?

where is the article doc - the link was about donations.

Links change. Google her name. Carmen Climaco. There are dozens of articles on it.

I grew up in New york as you know and remember when the logo on the front page of the times was "all the news that's fit to print" was their motto. The NYT was the best news paper in the entire country. Not anymore, now it has as much veracity as the national enquirer.

oh please...stop with the neoconservative mantra...the times is still "the Paper of Record" despite their whining.

there is no media more scrutinized than the NYT. their facts check out better than anyone's. they have to. and when someone finds something to "get-em" on, they blow it up so out of proportion it's not even funny.

if ya wanna call their EDITORIAL page liberally biased, that is a fair commentary. but to question their facts is irresponsible and is only parroting what you have heard coming out of the right wing media machine that can't stand the fact that the most widely read daily publication in the world has an editorial section that liberal writers are dominant on.

i respect your views MM and all,,,but i have a hard time respecting parroted words that just make ya look like a stooge for someone else's agenda. think for yourself. go fact check the Sunday Times front page stories from today and see for yourself how wrong the hating and jealous right wingers are.

The NYT response.

The problem isn't the story, Sconn1, the problem is that for a long time after this story was shown to be very different than what they portrayed, they refused to do anything about it. This was a story printed in APRIL and has been getting panned almost ever since. They said for a long time that they "had no reason to doubt the facts of the article", even after they'd been made aware of the real facts.

What they were really saying, in my opinion, is that they were differing with the findings of the court in her trial. That's not reporting the news, that's drafting propaganda.

What they were really saying, in my opinion, is that they were differing with the findings of the court in her trial. That's not reporting the news, that's drafting propaganda.

that's your opinion. i don't really have much of a problem with the time's response, other than the apparent slowness of it. i see your point there, they should have been faster.

but, my point to MM and guy was that the times, on the whole, is as factual as anyone, if not more. EVERY media outlet fucks somethin up every once in a while, and most of em are slow at best at responding. most news organizations won't apologize or retract anything unless they are pinned down. just the other day, i was following that story out of miami on fox news. when the story broke in the afternoon, they made a HUGE deal out of the driver being an Iraqi and another passenger being of lebonese descent. they most certainly gave the impression that "for sure" this was a successful stopping of a terrorist threat so much that even I, almost jumped on here and gave some kudos to the admnistration. that "editoializing" i'm sure gave other people a certain impression. later, after it was discovered there was no terrorist threat, their follow-ups were unapologetic about their jumping the gun with the facts and nowhere were they mentioning the national origins of the truckers. and i'm sure they won't apologize down the road. that's the way it is.

my point was that MM's broad painting of the NYT is pure hogwash and in itself, propoganda.

It isn't so much a matter of accuracy as it is skew. The Bush is always half stupid, as it were. There were days where there were big news stories, and on the front page of the NYT we find the fourth story about Plamegate that week...

That kind of skew BREEDS the mistakes made here. There's no hesitation to self-indulge. They see a story that clicks their little trigger, and they leap to believe it, even ignoring facts.

For papers where quality news reporting is the main interest, I don't believe you'd have that environment. When you spend your time trying to serve a particular perspective, then you have to stretch on days where there aren't many stories to tell FROM that perspective.

It's just like Fox playing to their main audience. I don't believe Fox is fair and balanced more than MSNBC or anyone else is. The NYT, though is constantly defended as only being biased on the editorial page, and that's a bunch of crap, frankly.

if ya wanna call their EDITORIAL page liberally biased, that is a fair commentary. but to question their facts is irresponsible and is only parroting what you have heard coming out of the right wing media machine that can't stand the fact that the most widely read daily publication in the world has an editorial section that liberal writers are dominant on.

Well, they are making a liar out of you since they were shown the error of their news story, yet decided that "they stand by their story". That does not bode well for integrity to me.

That kind of skew BREEDS the mistakes made here.

The difference between Al Franken and the NY times is that Al does not pretend to be unbiased.

The difference between Al Franken and the NY times is that Al does not pretend to be unbiased.

but does bias make one a liar? i don't think it nec. does