Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.

Apparently, the NY Times now feels that Post Partum Abortion is a cause Celebre that must be defended at all costs (including the truth).  Back in April, one of their "unbiased" writers, Jack Hitt reported on a case of a women being given a long prison sentence for having an 18 week abortion.  And he advocated that she should not be in jail for killing her baby.

The problem is, that the woman, Carmen Climaco, did not have an abortion.  She murdered her new born baby after birth.  An autopsy showed the baby died of asphyxiation after birth, not before birth, and it was a regular term birth, not a preemie.

And what does the NY Times have to say about all that? They stand by their story.  In other words, they stand by a lie, just to promote post Partum abortions.

And we are supposed to believe their lies when it seems that almost every day their reporting is shown to be false, misleading or just down right slanderous?  Right!  No problem on my part.  I don't read the rag any more.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 09, 2007
but does bias make one a liar? i don't think it nec. does


When presented with the facts, and refusing to print a retraction, that does.
on Jan 09, 2007
but does bias make one a liar?


No, misrepresenting the facts and then denying them makes you a delusional liar though.
on Jan 09, 2007
No, misrepresenting the facts and then denying them makes you a delusional liar though.


excuse me? gonna make this personal now? really wanna go there?

i asked a simple question..and misrepresented nothing.

don't be a horse's-ass.

on the substance of what you say,,,(hypothetically) if someone misrepresents something purposefully, then refuses to retract it...how exactly are they delusional? that's nonsense. if you are callin someone a liar, you don't need to overreach by throwing in additional zings that quite frankly, don't make any sense and show your puntitry all too clearly.

When presented with the facts, and refusing to print a retraction, that does


then we can call every single media outlet, across the spectrum a liar then. i think it's safe to say that every news service at some time has misreported something and then offered no retraction when facts did not bear them out. there are people on this blog site who think just deleting a piece of made up propoganda makes it AOK...it doesn't. most of the time, the readers that bought the lies never even know the story was later deleted.

i, myself, do try to go back and update or correct stories when i can,,,and remember to do so (i'm not a professional news bureau and don't exactly have the time to devote "full time hours" to my lil articles). if someone calls me on something from the past, i always am open to re-examination. but like everyone else, who is being honest with themselves, i'm not perfect and forget and so forth. but that is better than simply hiding your lies from the world as facts come to light and still try to come off as some mark of integrity, as some do, here and elsewhere.

i must admit too, that lately, due to the forums on here basically fucking up every story i try to edit or change, have made me a lil gun shy to mess with past work, so i tend to use the replies (like i did this morning printing a correction of a charge i made against sen. joe biden).

and the times did seem to retract their story,,,better late than never.

on Jan 09, 2007
excuse me? gonna make this personal now? really wanna go there?


I think he was using the neutral you. Not as you personally, but as in "anyone".
on Jan 09, 2007
and the times did seem to retract their story,,,better late than never.


When?
on Jan 09, 2007
Typical NYT bullshit. They stopped being a credible news source years ago and anyone who still thinks they are a trustworthy new outlet is a damn idiot living in a dream world.

The woman murdered a baby, she deserves prison time.
on Jan 09, 2007
anyone who still thinks they are a trustworthy new outlet is a damn idiot living in a dream world.


I give them the benefit. They are just deluded. As in they have not tried to find the truth and rely on it for it. A shame really.
on Jan 09, 2007
I don't give them the benefit of the doubt at all. They have the resources to actually report the truth but instead they make the choice to report half truths and outright lies. They are no better than the National Enquirer in my mind. How many times in the past 5 years have they been shown to be reporting less than truthful stories? They're politically motivated scum.
on Jan 10, 2007
They are no better than the National Enquirer in my mind. How many times in the past 5 years have they been shown to be reporting less than truthful stories? They're politically motivated scum.


Actually, as I alluded to earlier, I would not insult the national enquirer that way. At least they are honest about what they are.
on Jan 10, 2007
and the times did seem to retract their story,,,better late than never.


Just found it. Thanks. But 5 months is not what I would call late. Catatonic is more like it.

WWW Link
on Jan 10, 2007
excuse me? gonna make this personal now? really wanna go there?


Wasn't aimed at you. Sorry if you thought it was, I just didn't type "one" instead of "you". Calm down. Have a ham sandwich.
on Jan 10, 2007
Have a ham sandwich.


mmmmmmmmmmmhamsandwich
on Jan 10, 2007
mmmmmmmmmmmhamsandwich


bad muslim!
2 Pages1 2