"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!

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.

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?

Un-fucking-believable.

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

Correction: Ho-hum. Business as usual.

"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.

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

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.

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

Try this link instead.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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