This I gottta see. So if they accurately quote a blatant lie told by, say a Democrat, then have they reported the truth. After all the quoted source <i>did</i> say what they reported, even if the source lied. Still lots of room for the same overt bias and lie-telling. The question is will they quote people who are telling the truth - even Democrats? -- The Philadelphia Talk Radio Politics and Opinion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:06:28 08/01/03 Fri
Author: SurveyGuy
Author Host/IP: pcp03884941pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net / 68.32.204.89
Subject: This I gottta see. So if they accurately quote a blatant lie told by, say a Democrat, then have they reported the truth. After all the quoted source did say what they reported, even if the source lied. Still lots of room for the same overt bias and lie-telling. The question is will they quote people who are telling the truth - even Democrats?

http://newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/30/145722
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
New York Times Hires Special Editors in Charge of Stopping Lies

We're almost starting to feel sorry for that Democrat mouthpiece known as the New York Times. Still reeling from its recent scandals, it has hired three editors whose jobs are pretty much to keep the paper from publishing more lies.

Acting on the recommendations of a committee, the Times said it would create three positions:

an editor in charge of standards to educate the staff "on matters of accuracy and ethics" (apparently it had no standards before)

a "public editor" to examine coverage and handle all those complaints from readers

an editor to oversee hiring and career development, i.e., to give preference to non-whites without creating another Jayson Blair.

"What we are out to do is raise our accountability for the management of our people, and acknowledge that it is inseparable from the making of our journalism," new Executive Editor Bill Keller said in a staff memo revealed today by the Associated Press.

----------------
Addendum by me:
I once say Sen. Patrick Moynihan give a speech on TV (C-Span I think) to some organization railing against how Congress had "borrowed" all the money out of the Social Security trust fund and left an "IOU" in effect. I never saw this truth reported and never saw Moynihan ever talk about that again. This was over a dozen years ago. I guess his party shut him up. This is not to say that the Republicans are complicit in this as well by keeping silent and even voting for those measures. Now were here the big lie that it was designed as a "pay as you go" system. Oh yeah? Then why did you need a "trust fund" and why can't we trust Congress to not raid it?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]