Since when do reporters or editors care about accuracy when their sole objective is to promote their own political ideas?

I don't see it as that big a deal as the vast majority of the readership to whom they are writing wouldn't know an Apache helicopter from a Tinker Toy.

if nothing else, that russian chopper on the cover of 'time' musta been one of a modest number that lucked out, escaped the mujahideen and made it home.

See previous answer.  Luck has nothing to do with it.

Regardless, then you are in agreement with the implication of the author at Time, that it is not the Iraq's or Americans that are extracating the Americans, but foreign factors that some here like to ignore.  As long as it is not a democrat in the white house?

Interesting.

i'm sure we can trust you to do so without referring to any source material other than your own memory. just as i'm sure we can count on your buddies here to refrain from assisting you in any way.

Sure thing!  And I will publish my answers on the cover of time as soon as the editors relent and say that I am as good a reporter as their hatchet men.

in any event--whether you succeed and show up the dummies at 'time'--it might not be too bad an idea to adjust your indignation quotient. someone made an error. happens alla time to us mere mortals. one has to be pretty bored or bereft of any sense of proportion to consider it anything close to some sorta blogging milestone

Someone like you perhaps?

The original blogger pointed out a major faux pas at Time.  I merely reported it as an example of a reporter/artist/editor (your choice) that seems more interested in hystrionics than in factual reporting in a supposed non-biased news rag.  You seem to be on a vendetta to salvage the reputation of the clown who did it.  For personal reasons perhaps?

This was not to show that I was an expert in anything as is clear to anyone reading this blog (except you apparently).  This was another call for accuracy, not generated by the editors in the MSM (as it should have been), but by a member of blogdom who is doing their work.  That is all.  You apparently seem to think that writers for "un-biased" media outlets should be given a carte blanche to report any misinformation they want, and no one should call them to task for it.  Whatever floats your boat.

But I suggest you reread this article, and examine what I said.  And then please explain why this particular incident would bring you out of semi retirement to defend what is an example of either poor editing or sloppy journalism or biased reporting (you can pick which one for yourself). 

I am sure you still think Rather was right as well.  I am sure Rather is sleeping well knowing one person beleives him.

Since when do reporters or editors care about accuracy when their sole objective is to promote their own political ideas?

Not for a long time apparently. That is why bloggers have found their calling to point it out.  And let the rest of us know what their (MSM) true agenda is.

dolly parton need not concern herself bout whether you'll dance whenever given an opportunity to do so.

if done deliberately against expert advice, it barely qualifies as a faux pas.

"dewey defeats truman" is a major faux pas.

jezez H kree ist I have never seen so much bullshit on one article, docG correctly stated that time made a mistake using a soviet era Hind helo instead of any number of American helos, the subject should be closed at that point, people should be saying things like good catch doc, but instead we get fucking dissertations on the whys and where fores of the mind set of the common man who might or might not know the difference in the silhouettes of helos, what pure and unadulterated crap!

hardly dissertations. if the following was an accurate characterization:



there would be nothing to discus.

instead, what was in fact the sorta minor error always waiting to happen whenever artists working against a deadlne are assigned to illustrate any but the simplest concept somehow became:



as well as:



carrying with it...



not to mention it being :



topped with:



but...i'm the one who overreacted???

The one on the top is...a helicopter!

The one on the bottom left is...a helicopter!

The one on the bottom right is...a helicopter!

How'd I do cap'n?

True, it could have simply been another bias of the MSM. however, if that was the case, why was the story pulled from their online site? Seems this duck quacks and stinks like a duck.

Actually, kb did bring up a good point. I had never thought it might be intentional. And the only reason I dont think it was now is that the link no longer works. So it might have been, or given the guilty actions of time, just another embrarrasment.

You qualify as an expert at time magazine!

Considering the context (as in taken out of) of the quotes you listed, it appears you are.