Responding to criticism of the editorial’s using the term “misspoke”,
the NY Times’ editorial page editor, one Andrew Rosenthal, defended the word by
asserting “We have a high threshold for [saying] whether someone lied.”
This statement turns out to be a big, bald-faced lie, as
Seth Mandel documents (link) in a
post at Commentary online. Not many
years ago the NY Times repeatedly and explicitly called President George Bush a
liar when disagreeing with him over policy.
Thus, when a Republican was president the NY Times was free and loose
with the “liar” accusation, but now with a Democrat in office the NY Times
can’t even use the word when evidence clearly shows that Obama and his
aides discussed the ongoing need to lie as Obama was lying. Ironic it is, the NY Times lying about its
standard for calling someone a liar.
I bother now to write this post not to document evidence of
the extreme liberal bias at the NY Times, an unnecessary effort since examples are legion. Rather, I write to express a certain sadness from the reminder that once-great institutions often corrode from the inside when no
adults are left who know right from wrong, or good from bad. We know now that the New York Times was long this
way (its cover up of Stalin’s massacres by its reporter Walter Duranty [link] quickly comes to mind), and before
the explosion of alternative sources to more readily grasp what is true and
what is not, we just didn’t know different, or better.
Update 11/15/2013: The NY Times by many accounts has abandoned the ridiculous "misspoke" terminology, and has adopted now the term "incorrect promise". I am not making this up. Honestly.
Update 11/15/2013: The NY Times by many accounts has abandoned the ridiculous "misspoke" terminology, and has adopted now the term "incorrect promise". I am not making this up. Honestly.
No comments:
Post a Comment