How Much Do We Not Know
HT to Mike Williams for forwarding CPT Ed's post on the corrections page at the NYT.
From the Times: The Op-Ed page in some copies yesterday carried an incorrect version of an article about military recruitment. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday," nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a "surprise tour of Iraq." That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error.
From CPT Ed: The Times acknowledges here that their editors make a habit of rewriting op-ed contributions, not just for clarity, but apparently to significantly change the meaning of the article. Take a look at the phrases that an editor added onto someone else's work, without having the benefit of experiencing the event himself. Both phrases indicate events that "surprise" the author, an assumption of a state of mind. Both of them, not coincidentally, make the military look bad. What a coincidence that the Paper of Record makes two "mistakes" that just happen to put the Army in a bad light.
Mike W. asks, and we all should wonder, if the NYT gets caught this time in so blatant an editorial abuse, how many times do they change op-eds or 'news' stories and not get caught? And how much of that bias flows through to papers who carry NYT articles like the N&O?
Liberal Media Bias
From the Times: The Op-Ed page in some copies yesterday carried an incorrect version of an article about military recruitment. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday," nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a "surprise tour of Iraq." That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error.
From CPT Ed: The Times acknowledges here that their editors make a habit of rewriting op-ed contributions, not just for clarity, but apparently to significantly change the meaning of the article. Take a look at the phrases that an editor added onto someone else's work, without having the benefit of experiencing the event himself. Both phrases indicate events that "surprise" the author, an assumption of a state of mind. Both of them, not coincidentally, make the military look bad. What a coincidence that the Paper of Record makes two "mistakes" that just happen to put the Army in a bad light.
Mike W. asks, and we all should wonder, if the NYT gets caught this time in so blatant an editorial abuse, how many times do they change op-eds or 'news' stories and not get caught? And how much of that bias flows through to papers who carry NYT articles like the N&O?
Liberal Media Bias
posted by SCP at 9:57 AM
<< Home