NY Times - All the Lies That's Fit To Print
The New York Times, long ago in a galaxy far away the paper of record, has become the paper of lies, fake articles & propaganda. The latest misstep is clearly another sign of how low the journalistic standards have sunk when it comes to printing a piece that promotes a part of their agenda, in this case to show how unjust laws that ban abortions are.
On 9 April 2006 The NY Times Magazine printed an article by Jack Hitt entitled Pro-Life Nation. (The title alone should raise alarms. The Main Stream Media (MSM) only uses this term when it is going to attack the Right To Life movement.) The article tell the story of how El Salvador has totally banned abortion & its alledged harmful results, in particular that Carmen Climaco is in jail for aborting her 18 week old fetus. The problem, it wasn't true. Mrs. Climaco actually was serving a 30 yr sentance for strangling her newborn baby.
How did all this come out? Not by the Times admitting it. It started with Julia Regina de Cardenal, the Human Life International's (HLI) affiliate director in El Salvador checking out the facts in the story & finding out the truth. She then wrote an editorial for 1 of El Salvador's largest newspapers attacking the fraudulent article. In it she says what she sees as the real reason for Hitt's blatent lies: "To cause indignation in the United States so that they will pressure us to legalize abortion." A Canadian Pro-Life groupe, LifeSite, found out about it. On 27 November 2006 it posted an story about the article on its website, New York Times Caught in Abortion-Promoting Whopper - Infanticide Portrayed as Abortion. LifeSite did what Jack Hitt failed to do, get the relevant court documents showing the truth about Mrs. Climaco. & it said so in the piece. Not only that, the story pointed out the major source of information used by Mr. Hitt in what has come to be called by some his "Hitt piece" came from a pro-abortion group called IPAS. THey have a vested interest in the law changing, Why? As the LifeSte article points out "(T)he group stands to profit financially from the legalization of abortion in El Salvador since it sells vacuum aspirators used for abortion and incomplete abortion." IPAS even made Mrs. Climaco their poster child starting a campiagn to get her freed to come to the USA. The plan to use her has since been dropped after the truth came out.
The LifeSite article began making the rounds. In the story Lifesite called on people to write the NY Times. This call has since been taken up by HLI. (Pro-Choice Violence, Big Media and Big Abortion ) As complaints came in the Times was forced to face what they did. Did they simply come out & admit they were wrong?, NO!. They couched the admission in an article by their ombudsman, Byron Calame, Truth, Justice, Abortion and the Times Magazine, that was more a defense of the article than not. He said: "The issues surrounding the article raise two points worth noting, both beyond another reminder to double-check information that seems especially striking. Articles on topics as sensitive as abortion need an extra level of diligence and scrutiny — “bulletproofing,” in newsroom jargon. And this case illustrates how important it is for top editors to carefully assess the complaints they receive." Sounds more like a how to avoid this embarrassing mistake in the future tip than an admission of guilt. I love the term he uses, "bulletproofing". Be sure that the article can't be shot down. I have no problem with that, if he would have put more emphasis on being sure the facts are accurate. (Given the number of scandals with the Times & innacurate facts, Mr Blair & others, you would think they would see that as the prime concern. But, NO!) It sounds more like him saying make sure the lies can't be uncovered.
Later he goes on to say: "Exceptional care must be taken in the reporting process on sensitive articles such as this one to avoid the slightest perception of bias." Not he doesn't say to avoid bias. He suggests you be sure it is covered up so well it can't be found.
Mr. Calame's true feelings about the subject come out in how he praises the article as a whole: "Apart from the flawed example of Ms. Climaco, Mr. Hitt’s 7,800-word cover article provided a broad and intriguing look at a nation where the penal code allows prison sentences for a woman who has an abortion, the provider of the procedure or anyone who assisted. His interviews with doctors, nurses, police officers, prosecutors, judges and both opponents and advocates of abortion offered revealing personal perspectives on the effects of the criminalization of the procedure." My question would be: "How well documented is the rest of the article for accuracy if this part wasn't?"
Mr. Calame shows how easy it would have been to get the court records. & gives Mr. Hitt's explanation (excuse?) for not doing so: "Mr. Hitt said Ms. Climaco had been brought to his attention by the magistrate who decided four years ago that the case warranted a trial, so he had asked the magistrate for the court record. “When she told me that the case had been archived, I accepted that to mean that I would have to rely upon the judge who had been directly involved in the case and who heard the evidence” in the trial stage of the judicial process." This raises the question of both the magistrate's motive & veracity.
So, where were the NY Times fact checkers & editors? Apparently asleep on the job. "Although Sarah H. Smith, the magazine’s editorial manager, told me that relevant court documents are “normally” reviewed, Mr. Hitt never checked the 7,600-word ruling in the Climaco case while preparing his story. And Mr. Hitt told me that no editor or fact checker ever asked him if he had checked the court document containing the panel’s decision." Mr. Calame claims this is not the Times usual standard. Again, given their track record in recent years of blindly accepting things that fit their agenda, I'd say that it showcased their standards.
I will credit Mr. Calame with documenting the NY Times mindset when he shows how the complaints were handled. "The initial complaints triggered a public defense of the article by two assistant managing editors before the court ruling had even been translated into English or Mr. Hitt had finished checking various sources in El Salvador. After being queried by the office of the publisher about a possible error, Craig Whitney, who is also the paper’s standards editor, drafted a response that was approved by Gerald Marzorati, who is also the editor of the magazine. It was forwarded on Dec. 1 to the office of the publisher, which began sending it to complaining readers.
The response said that while the “fair and dispassionate” story noted Ms. Climaco’s conviction of aggravated homicide, the article “concluded that it was more likely that she had had an illegal abortion.” The response ended by stating, “We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts as reported in our article, which was not part of any campaign to promote abortion.” "
Not "part of any campaign to promote abortion”? Again, given IPAS' part in the article & their $30,000 fundraising campaign using that article, the facts say otherwise. As Michelle Malkin says: "It's official: The editors of The New York Times have no shame." (All the abortion lies fit to print, 3 January 2007, Townhall.com that was a slightly different version of an article on her own blog on 2 January 2007 also titled All the abortion lies fit to print) I'd be willing to bet the real reason they defended the article as well as didn't bother with facts goes back to what I said before, the pro-abortion (read pro-death) portion of the Times agenda.
& even now, The Times won't write back to those that it had given the original response admitting they were wrong. Mr. Calame says: "I asked Mr. Whitney if he intended to suggest that the office of the publisher bring the court’s findings to the attention of those readers who received the “no reason to doubt” response, or that a correction be published. The latest word from the standards editor: “No, I’m not ready to do that, nor to order up a correction or Editors’ Note at this point.” "
I conclude with a quote from Michelle Malkin's Townhall article about the Main Stream Media (MSM) & how this latest fiasco fits into the MSM's decline: "Calame concluded that "Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect." That's too polite. The Times slung bull and they refuse to clean it up. The Times' Climaco-gate, like the Associated Press' Jamil Hussein-gate and Reuters' fauxtography scandal and CBS's Rathergate, will go down in mainstream history as yet another case of textbook media malpractice.
The next time you hear a New York Times columnist defend the paper's commitment to accuracy, fairness and ethical standards, give them two words: Carmen Climaco. The next time journalism elites wonder why newspaper circulation is plunging, remember: Carmen Climaco. The next time MSM apologists deny liberal bias, ask them rhetorically -- "Atlas Shrugged"-style -- "Who is Carmen Climaco?" "
The e-mail adresses to contact the Times are:
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
Scott H. Heekin-Canedy, President, General Manager:
Michelle Malkin's update on how The Times is reacting to Mr. Calame's article: No more NYTimes' ombudsman?
posted by Al @ 1:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home