New York Times' Public Editor Looking Into Blumenthal Coverage

[sabra]

Source: Media Matters

As the criticism grows over The New York Times coverage of U.S. Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, specifically claims that the Times did not offer a full version of a video in which Blumenthal falsely claimed to have served in Vietnam, Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt says he is looking into the matter.

"I am taking a look at it," Hoyt told me this morning, but said he did not know if it would result in a column or when. "I don't know. I am doing what you are doing."

Presumably that means trying to find out what happend.

The Times published a lengthy investigation into Blumenthal on Monday, pegged in part on several instances in which he said he had served in Vietnam. In reality, he served in the U.S. Marine Corp. reserve during the Vietnam era, but never in the war.

The Times offered video clips of Blumenthal stating the incorrect service details. But word has since come out that one of the clips it used had not included Blumenthal stating the accurate information about his service record earlier at the same event.


Read more: http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201005200008

[Dawson Leery]

1. kick

[nykym]

2. For Christ's Sake

Doesn't anyone check their sources before writing anymore? But what is really troubling is the fact that they want to make sure they got it wrong before writing a retraction. And why in the world would they think Linda McMahon was a reputable source. They are pro wrestlers big show, lots of flash, no substance.

[kristopher]

3. K&R

[Beetwasher]

4. It's Looking More And More Like This Was A Vicious, Disgusting Smear Job That The Times Facilitated

Shame shame shame.

[Beetwasher]

5. delete

n/a

[pinboy3niner]

6. " . . . he did not know if it would result in a column or when."

So Hoyt is looking into it, but whether or not it will be reported in the Times is uncertain. Well, that's got to inspire confidence.

And even if Hoyt DOES report his findings, he'll have to do a whole heckuva lot better job than he did in his review of the Times' false ACORN 'pimp' story. As DUer BradBlog reported here and on his blog, Hoyt's investigation and reports on the subject were not exactly meticulous. See, for example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7779262


I'm crossing my fingers (but not holding my breath).

(Ed. to fix link)

[OregonBlue]

7. I wish another paper like the Washington Post or whatever would do a story on the NYT using

Blumenthal's opponent as their researcher. When I read that his opponent had actually provided the film and done the research, I was stunned. What king of paper allows a political opponent to be the chief researcher and doesn't verify all the facts for themselves. A bad one or one with an agenda.

[glitch]

8. You'd think they would've learned their lesson from the Breitbart-O'Keefe affair.

Perhaps they did, last I checked ACORN is still dead.