Ace of Spades HQ

« Ace of Spades: Home of Off-the-Cuff Bullshit Later Confirmed By Real People | Main | Shock: BBC Decides That Terrorists, Rather Than "Militants" or "Fighters," Bombed London »

July 07, 2005

In Case You Missed It: An Interesting "Correction" From the New York Times

Let me sum up: an unnamed editor made up quotes and falsely attributed them to the writer of an op-ed.

Got that? Just f'n' made language up and put that language into the mouth of a writer, as a quote. Not to clarify; not to simply; not to correct.

She (hey, there's that use of the feminine pronoun as the neutral pronoun; fun, huh?) just made up the following, attributing it to the Army reserve officer writing the article:

Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday

And furthermore claimed he called his call-up to duty as the beginning of a "surprise tour of Iraq."

Okay? Got that? Just made it up, put those words ("imagine my suprise," "a surprise tour of Iraq") into the first-person account of the officer.

Now, for the explanation:

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.

I should say it does!

The language was added... with the intention of subsequently removing it? What? Who the hell puts fake quotes into an article with the idea that, just before the print run, they'll take them out?

Do they think we're stupid? Are they claiming the editor/editrix just wanted to see how the false quotes looked in the article, the same as she'd try on a pair of shoes she had no real intention of buying?

They inserted language intended to make the article more poignantly anti-Bush and their mistake was getting called on it by an angry writer.

Note that you can juice up the language of a piece, but you cannot falsely attribute false emotions and false thoughts to a first-person narrative. That's the same as making up quotes and putting them into the mouth of the subject of a story-- here, the "subject" is the writer himself, and his feelings, thoughts, and words are his own "quotes."

Did this New York Times editor not comprehend the difference?

At any rate, over at Traffic Non-Santa, Michael Barone emails to ask if that editor is still employed.

If so-- then we have to assume there's a good reason for that... like that this is a common Times practice.

Complicated, which is why I didn't bother with it when it first broke, but now I must say... gob-smackingly vile.

PS: Don't trust the Shadow Media. We don't have the benefit of J-school graduate editors making up our own quotes for us.

Possible Alternative Explanation: The editrix added the language as a possible addition to the piece, intending to ask the author himself to add the language, if it were close to true, in order to juice it up a bit.

But the Times doesn't want to admit to that, either. They don't want to admit that they make "helpful suggestions" to writers of first-person accounts as to how to change their real-life, actual-world experiences to make them just a touch more "fit to print."

posted by Ace at 09:58 PM

Comments

"Do they think we're stupid?"

They're clinging to any olive branch they can, because they are WELL aware of the fact that bloggers are being taken more credibly than the MSM is by the "common man" on a day by day basis. They are a sinking ship, and are desperate; pathetic also.

They're going down hard, and fast, and oh my gosh, how badly that has to smart. They'd better start blogging QUICK, or they're gonna be outta biz.

WE are now the "media". It is because of this fact that they are resorting to "making up the news" on their own while we bloggers actually report the REAL news.

I love seeing them squirm like this. To HELL with 'em!

Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal on July 7, 2005 10:26 PM

You know what is scary about this.

The New York Times has been doing this for decades. It is only recently that bloggers have outed the NYT as one of most unprincipled organizations in America. NYT has fed lie after lie to the American public for most of the 20th Century.

Posted by: Jake on July 7, 2005 10:48 PM

If the added language gave the article a different spin, why would the editor think the writer would agree to it? And why would the editor/NYT think there wouldn't be complaints by the writer?

Posted by: on July 7, 2005 10:54 PM

Un-fucking-believable.

Oh, no, wait. This is the NY Times we're talking about.

Correction: Ho-hum. Business as usual.

Posted by: Phinn on July 7, 2005 10:59 PM

"The New York Times has been doing this for decades. It is only recently that bloggers have outed the NYT as one of most unprincipled organizations in America."

NYT = Quisling Headquarters

The nyt is the most dishonest destructive institution in American life by far:

(i) always somehow on the side of genocide - lying about it (Duranty), minimizing it (holocaust), enabling it (Vietnam/Cambodia) and in the case of today's radical Islam genocide wanna-bes, 'understanding' it and

(ii) post World War II, more supportive of America's enemies, first Communism and now radical Islam, than it is of America.

The Sulzberger family - America's home-grown curse.

Posted by: max on July 7, 2005 11:17 PM

max is right... I am so damn glad they can finally scurry in the light.

Posted by: Dave in Texas on July 7, 2005 11:23 PM

Of course, this is the same frickin' editorial staff that won't fact check an error-filled Paul Krugman column.

I guess only certain writers are subjected to the harsh pen of the editorial staff.

Posted by: Slublog on July 7, 2005 11:28 PM

Crap. All that solidarity with Britain celebration has me a bit loopy.

Try this link instead.

Posted by: Slublog on July 7, 2005 11:29 PM

Imagine my surprise when I found out that they're just making shit up again at the New York Times!

Posted by: Sean M. on July 8, 2005 03:13 AM

As much as I hate to give the NYT the benefit of any doubt, there could actually be a relatively innocent explanation.

When I worked at a small town paper right out of college, every once in a while on a slow day we'd stick some smart-@$$ comment into a story just to see if we could get a laugh out of an editor. I don't remember anybody ever doing it to an op-ed, and I don't remember any of them ever getting into print. If the editor whose chain was being yanked didn't catch on to the joke, the perpetrator always clued him in before it left his desk.

This is the most innocent possible explanation I can come up with, and even it leaves the editorial staff at the Times looking like a bunch of dumb kids.

Posted by: DonutBoy on July 8, 2005 04:22 AM

Let's try it on them. Here's how their correction should be quoted:

"That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Honestly, we didn't think anyone would notice. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error. Or at least that we were caught."

See, just two additional sentences! It's not that bad of a thing to do!

Posted by: harkyman on July 8, 2005 07:44 AM

I've worked at a few small-town newspapers, and this sort of thing is done all the time as a joke, like the time a newspaper in Huntington, Indiana referred to the Kentucky Girls High-School All-Star basketball team as the Hilljack Bumblef**ks. Usually this is done in so obvious a manner as to register with the copy editors who giggle and dutifully remove the offending copy. That particular line, however, snuck through and people were fired.

So this type of thing can happen, but if the NYT editor were really just fooling around, she would have inserted something so obviously fake the copy editor would have instantly recognized the joke.

You really have to wonder what's going on at the Times.

Posted by: Ben Lange on July 8, 2005 11:01 AM

Taranto at BOTW yesterday also gives the positive spin alternative explanation, which i think is overly generous. if this is common practice, i don't like it. especially with the slant put on it.

Posted by: matthew on July 8, 2005 11:20 AM

Question:

"The language was added... with the intention of subsequently removing it? What? Who the hell puts fake quotes into an article with the idea that, just before the print run, they'll take them out?"

Answer:

"Earlier Friday, FOXNews.com posted an item purporting to contain quotations from Kerry. The item was based on a reporter’s partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134166,00.html

Posted by: Abe on July 8, 2005 12:24 PM

Oh, and here's the story Fox ran:

http://www.masstort.org/fox/FOXNews_com%20-%20You%20Decide%202004%20-%20Trail%20Tales%20-%20BTrail%20Tales-B%20What's%20That%20Face.htm

Posted by: Abe on July 8, 2005 12:25 PM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

TJM definitively ranks the films of David Lean

Mayor Karen is so stung by fan-made AI ads that she's resorting to the shitlibs' go-to demand for an end to criticism -- these ads are "violent" and "hateful" and making me feel unsafe because one video showed AI cartoons throwing tomatoes at me and the tomatoes looked like blood when they squished
This was her actual complaint. The mushed-up tomato looked like blood so it's a death threat and these violent attacks on me must stop. What is dis bitch, CNN?

Podcast: Sefton and CBD are joined by Jeff Carter, candidate for NV treasurer, and seasoned finance professional, for a discussion of the issues facing Nevadans, and the larger financial challenges in America.

TJM explores the movies of David Lean, director of Lawrence of Arabia

Few people remember that Norm MacDonald began his career as a ventriloquist
MacDonald's old partner Adam Egot revealed that MacDonald repurposed a bit with one of his ventriloquist dolls -- that he was a "bad guy" who "didn't believe the Holocaust happened" -- for the Norm MacDonald show, in which he claimed Egot didn't believe in the Holocaust.

Funniest thing I've read about the Virginia mess. Back when they were hustling the referendum through the assembly both Senators, Warner and Kaine, advised them to go slow and play by the rules. Louise Lucas said she respected them but didn't need advice from the "cuck chair" in the corner. The gerrymandering was overturned and Louise is heading for the big house. Edward G. Robinson voice "where's your cuck now?"
Posted by: Smell the Glove

I posted his post on twitter and it's gotten 25K views so far. Thanks, Smell the Glove

Chris
@chriswithans

"Ahhhhh ahh I put my career on the line for Louise Lucas and Jay Jones thinking they'd vault me into presidential contention and we ended up costing Democrats 20 House seats and unleashing a Reverse Dobbs ahhhhh ahhh"

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click That Sums Up the Democrat Communist Party Today
Something is wrong as I hold you near
Somebody else holds your heart, yeah
You turn to me with your icy tears
And then it's raining, feels like it's raining

TJM wonders about world building in stories, mostly The Hunger Games

"It's f**king f**ked."
-- reportedly a genuine comment offered by a "senior Labour source"
Correction: I wrote that Labour is losing 88% (now 87%) of the seats it is "defending." I think that's wrong. The right way to say it is the seats they are contesting -- that is, they don't necessarily already hold these seats, but they have put up a candidate to run for the seat. It's still very bad but not as bad as losing 87% of the seats they already held.

Basil the Great
@BasilTheGreat

🚨ED MILIBAND [a Minister in Starmer's government] SAYS KEIR STARMER WILL RESIGN AS PRIME MINISTER

He has reportedly reassured Labour MP's that Starmer will be resigning following the disastrous results tonight

It's over

"The end of the two party system in the UK" as first the Fake Conservatives and now Labour chooses political suicide rather than simply STOPPING THE INVASION
Incidentally, the only reason this didn't already happen in the US is because of the Very Bad Orange Man (who is right on 85% of all policy calls and extremely, existentially right on 15% of them)

No political party that is NOT also a doomsday religious cult would EVER choose a cataclysmic loss -- and possible extinction as a party -- to support a toxically unpopular favoritism of NON-CITIZEN ILLEGAL MIGRANTS over actual citizen voters.

Only a cult does this.

Now they've lost 84%.

Annunziata Rees-Mogg
@zatzi
If this continues Labour loses 2,148 seats tonight.

That is much worse than the worst case predictions I’ve seen.

Cataclysmic

Update: They've now lost 88% of the seats they're defending. As I mentioned earlier, I think I heard that London will not bail them out, as many of those Labour seats will probably flip to "Muslim Independent" or Green. Detroit's 5am vote will not save them.

Yup, Labour is losing 80% of its seats...

The British Patriot
@TheBritLad

🚨 BREAKING: Labour have lost 80% of all seats contested as of 2:25 AM.<
br> If this continues, Keir Starmer will be out of office next week.

Reform has surged and projected to pick up between 1700-2100 seats.

Wow, up to 1700-2100 seats. It's not incredible that this is happening. It's incredible that the Davos crowd is so absolutely determined to privilege Muslim "migrants" over the actual native population who elects them, no matter how loudly the natives scream that they want to be prioritized, that they will gladly self-extinguish as a party rather than simply representing the interests of their own voters. Astonishing.
Remember, when they call other people "cultists" -- they are the ones so imprisoned in their social reinforcement and discipline bubbles that they will choose political death rather than dare upset the Karen Enforcement Officers of their cult.
Update: Now they've lost 83% of the seats they were defending.

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges

Reform are basically wiping Labour out in the North. It's not a defeat. It's not even a rout. Labour are simply ceasing to exist.

Nick Lowles
@lowles_nick

Tonight’s results are calamitous for Labour. Not just for Keir Starmer's leadership, but for the very future of the party

STARMERGEDDON: In early returns, Reform gains 135 seats, Labour loses 90, the Fake Conservatives lose 36 (and I didn't even know they could fall any further), the Lib Dems lose 4, and the Greens gain 6. Note that the only other party gaining seats is the Greens and they're only gaining a handful of seats.
Update: Reform now up 145, Labour down 98.
Labour projected to lose Wales -- where they've ruled for 27 years.
Fulton County Georgia just discovered 400 boxes of ballots for Labour
Update: REF +156, LAB -107, CON -45
Brutal: In four out of five council seats where Labour is defending, they've lost. 80%.
I'm sure it's not this simple, but Reform is straight taking Labour's and the "Conservatives'" seats. They've lost almost exactly what Reform gained. If understand this right (and warning, I probably don't), all of London's council seats are up for election, and Labour might lose hugely there, as their old voters abandon them for Reform, Muslim Indenpendents, and the Greens.
REF +190, LAB -134, CON -56.

Updates on the Labour collapse in council elections -- which wags are calling #Starmergeddon -- from Beege Welborne. There are about 5000 seats up for grabs, Labour is expected to lose 1,800, Reform will probably gain 1,580, up from... zero. So this would be more than that.
People claim that while Labour has adopted the Sharia Agenda to appeal to the million Muslims it allowed to migrate to the country, those voters are ditching Labour to vote for the Muslim Independent Party or the Greens. Delicious. This shadenfreude is going straight to my thighs.
Oh, and if Starmer loses about as badly as expected, Labour will toss him out of a window Braveheart style and replace him. He will announce he is resigning to spend more time with his Gay Ukrainian Male Prostitutes.

Media bias and senationalism are as old as, well, the media:

That was written by Denny O'Neill and illustrated by, get this, Frank Miller. Editor to the Stars Jim Shooter was in charge at the time.
I always thought the gag was original to the comic book, but in fact the "Threat or Menace" headline was a satirical joke about media bias and sensationalism for a long while. The Harvard Lampoon used it in a parody of Life magazine: "Flying Saucers: Threat or Menace?"

Hamas is Humiliating Trump's 'Board of Peace'
[Hat Tip: TC] [CBD]