Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Jon Ekdahl 2026
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups





















« Al Jazeera: US Troops, Not Al Qaeda, Behind Bombing of Children | Main | I'm Out of Gas On Rove, But Barone and Steyn Are Still Racing »
July 18, 2005

NYT Does Damage Control On "Production Error" Gaffe

The Times attempts to explain, lamely, why an editor inserted anti-Bush language ("Imagine my surprise" at being called up for action in Iraq) into a reserve officer's piece about recruitment.

They are somewhat successful in explaining that this was an inadvertant error-- they had suggested new language, the writer said "No way" to the changes, and they accidentally ran the wrong version of the piece.

But they say they suggested this language -- calling it ordinary editorial back-and-forth between editor and writer -- to make the piece "stronger."

Stronger? In what manner? True enough, the "surprise" language added an emotional element the original editorial had not had... but that's sort of damning. The writer didn't express negative emotion about being recalled for duty; the editor "helpfully" suggested that maybe he ought to.

The new language made the piece stronger, no doubt-- more strongly anti-Bush. Which was, I would suggest, the whole point of the exercise, and a failing the New York Times not only fails to refute, but simply ignores.

The mainstream media has long done just this-- as they are, or, rather, were, the gatekeepers of information, they previously had the power to simply make embarassing issues go away by embaroging them.

Well, the New York Times won't admit its reasons for "suggesting" that language to the writer; but there are legions in the Shadow Media who will do that distasteful service for them.

One small victory: until the constant critique from the Shadow Media, the Times never would have run even such a half-true/half-mendacious explanation about its error.

At least that's some progress.


posted by Ace at 03:13 PM
Comments



Yeah, but did you notice that there is already a correction posted to the correction story? It's just the city Carter lived in at the time, but score yet another one for the multiple layers of fact cheching.

Posted by: Scot on July 18, 2005 04:30 PM

Yeah, I hate it when I accidentally encourage force people to support my point of view, against their will ... /TJ

Posted by: TJ on July 18, 2005 08:36 PM

Okay; you as a blogger have caught a MSM outlet in a blatantly biased distortion. But, since you misspelled "embargoing", your argument is discredited.

/usenet flammage

Posted by: The Sanity Inspector on July 18, 2005 09:56 PM

Of course, Carter is also a blogger, at Intel Dump (formerly the name of his own one-man blog).

Posted by: someone on July 19, 2005 12:48 AM

I don't get this. It's one thing to suggest stronger language, more descriptive adjectives that invoke powerful emotions. You know, the narrative part of the story. How the hell do you suggest making up quotations that the guy they interviewed NEVER MADE??? That's inexcusable and should have never even crossed the threshold of an idea that should ever even occur to an editor. "Hey, wouldn't it be great if your guy had said...".

Uh, sure it would, but he didn't you fuckwit.

Posted by: Sherard on July 19, 2005 07:35 AM

Hey, I can do that.

UPHOLDING the journalistic integrity of The New York Times requires a lot of care. Maintaining the perception of journalistic integrity can require even more care. So, can anybody like, show us how? Cause we pretty much suck at it.

Imagine our surprise.

Posted by: Dave in Texas on July 19, 2005 09:52 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*
Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.
A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.
The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.
Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Sefton and CBD talk about how would a peace treaty with Iran work, Democrats defending murderers and rapists, The GOP vs. Dem bench for 2028, composting bodies? And more!
Oh, I forgot to mention this quote from Pete Hegseth, reported by Roger Kimball: "We are sharing the ocean with the Iranian Navy. We're giving them the bottom half."
Forgotten 80s Mystery Click: Red Leather Suit and Sweatband Edition
And I was here to please
I'm even on knees
Makin' love to whoever I please
I gotta do it my way
Or no way at all
Tomorrow is March 25th, "Tolkien Reading Day," because March 25th is the day when the Ring is destroyed in the book. I think I'm going to start the Hobbit tomorrow and read all four books this time.
The only bad part of the trilogy are the Frodo/Sam chapters in The Two Towers. They're repetitive, slow, and mostly about the weather and terrain. But most everything else is good. Weirdly, the Frodo-Sam chapters in Return of the King are exciting and action-packed and among the best in the trilogy. (Though the chapters with everyone else in Return of the King get pretty slow again. Mostly people talking about marching towards war, and then marching towards war.)
Forgotten 80s Mystery Click
One day I'm gonna write a poem in a letter
One day I'm gonna get that faculty together
Remember that everybody has to wait in line
Oh, [Song Title], look out world, oh, you know I've got mine
US decimation of Iran's ICBM forces is due to Space Force's instant detection of launches -- and the launchers' hiding places -- and rapid counter-attack via missiles
AI is doing a lot of the work in analyzing images to find the exact hiding place of the launchers. Counter-strikes are now coming in four hours after a launch, whereas previously it might have taken days for humans to go over the imagery and data.
Robert Mueller, Former Special Counsel Who Probed Trump, Dies
“robert mueller just died,” trump wrote in a truth social post on march 21. “good, i’m glad he’s dead. he can no longer hurt innocent people! president donald j. trump.”
Canadian School Designates Cafeteria And Lunchroom As "No Food Zones" For Ramadan
Canada and the UK are neck and neck in the race to become the first western country to fall to Islam [CBD]
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Sefton and CBD have a short chat about Iran, the disgusting SAVE Act theater, Mamdani's politicizing of St. Patrick's Day, and more!
Recent Comments
Candace Owens AS Nathan Thurm: "[i]196 Festive Little Hats is a code word for Jooo ..."

Ian S.: "[i]Well, you'd be wrong. Not posting the link, but ..."

Josephistan: "How did half the country get so f'n weird? How? ..."

XTC: "Nobody ever calls Jharles by his government name, ..."

Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere [/i] [/b] [/s]: "The "literal Statue of Liberty" (which of course s ..."

Robert: "parody song lyrics are the lowest form of comedy. ..."

Josephistan: "Kamala Harris received 0.0% of the democrat primar ..."

Intercepted Reddit Transmissions brought by the Intrepid AoS Liaison: "Damn. I had so much to share, but stupid WORK had ..."

Rev. Wishbone: ">>>How did half the country get so f'n weird? How? ..."

William F. 'Buck' Dharma: " If people wonder why I didn't just name the guy a ..."

San Franpsycho: "30 MARCH 2026 / SF NEWS / JAY BARMANN Sheryl ..."

Heroq: "You know that scene from Mad Men where Donald Drap ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives