CINCINNATI (TDB) -- The Big Apple blog Gawker says the Times sat on the story about John McCain and the lady lobbyist for two months. The wait cheated primary voters who may have wanted to hear more and dig deeper before McCain won the GOP championship. And the story was weak when it appeared -- hardly worth a long delay. Says Gawker:
"There is nothing noble or redeeming about this morning's New York Times story on John McCain's alleged improprieties with a young female lobbyist, nothing remotely cunning, nothing but tragedy. The story is too late for Republican primary voters, too weak to be remembered in the general election, and worst of all, a sad illustration of how the Times regularly squanders its money and reputation dilly-dallying on its biggest stories."
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Oops!!! At The New York Times, Kucinich Briefly Became Republican
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- A correction has appeared: "Because of an editing error, an article in some editions on Saturday about a ruling giving absentee voters in New Jersey the right to cast another ballot if their candidate quit the race misidentified, in some copies, the political affiliation of two candidates who dropped out. Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico are Democrats."
H/T Regret the Error, which said the misidentification could make Kucinich's head explode.
H/T Regret the Error, which said the misidentification could make Kucinich's head explode.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Huge Screwup By New York Times: MoveOn Got Pricecut On Petraeus Ad
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- New York Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt reports the newspaper "gave critics ammunition" by charging MoveOn.org $64,575 for the Petraeus/Betray Us ad, a fee that should have cost $142,083. And now the argument is going to swirl that the Times told MoveOn for its ad about Petraeus: Don't pay us.
Hoyt says NYT adversting officials have now admitted they seriously undercharged MoveOn after at first insisting the $64,575 price was correct. The ad has enraged conservatives and drew the ire of some Democrats (including this blog) who considered it a breach of good taste to use inflammatory language best reserved for traitors deserving firing squads or military prisons.
Hoyt said, "I'd have demanded changes to eliminate 'Betray Us,' a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier."
He did a long take out in his column "The Public Editor" for Sunday's Times.
Bradley A. Blakeman,who heads an organization called Freedom Watch complained about the price MoveOn received. Freedom Watch plans to run an ad in the Times criticizing Iranian President Mahmous Ahmadinejad's visit to Colombia University. He wants the stand by rate that MoveOn received.
"I want to thank the ombudsman of the New York time sfor reaching the fair conclusion that MoveOn.ord received a discounted rate for their outrageous ad that appeared in the September 10th edition. It's pretty clear to me that MoveOn.org owes the New York Times $75,508 for the incorrect fee and Freedom's Watch is calling on the New York times to charge MoveOn.org for the discrepancy, otherwise it appears the New York Times made an illegal corporate contribution to the radical left wing group."
MoveOn, of course, is not radical. It doesn't want the U.S. government overthrown, it doesn't favor the suspension of civil liberties. It only wants the war to end, and favors a government run by progressive Democrats rather than a government run by Republicans.
Sadly, the Times error has played into the right's hands. It stumbled. The newspaper looks like another wartime casualty.
Hoyt says NYT adversting officials have now admitted they seriously undercharged MoveOn after at first insisting the $64,575 price was correct. The ad has enraged conservatives and drew the ire of some Democrats (including this blog) who considered it a breach of good taste to use inflammatory language best reserved for traitors deserving firing squads or military prisons.
Hoyt said, "I'd have demanded changes to eliminate 'Betray Us,' a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier."
He did a long take out in his column "The Public Editor" for Sunday's Times.
Bradley A. Blakeman,who heads an organization called Freedom Watch complained about the price MoveOn received. Freedom Watch plans to run an ad in the Times criticizing Iranian President Mahmous Ahmadinejad's visit to Colombia University. He wants the stand by rate that MoveOn received.
"I want to thank the ombudsman of the New York time sfor reaching the fair conclusion that MoveOn.ord received a discounted rate for their outrageous ad that appeared in the September 10th edition. It's pretty clear to me that MoveOn.org owes the New York Times $75,508 for the incorrect fee and Freedom's Watch is calling on the New York times to charge MoveOn.org for the discrepancy, otherwise it appears the New York Times made an illegal corporate contribution to the radical left wing group."
MoveOn, of course, is not radical. It doesn't want the U.S. government overthrown, it doesn't favor the suspension of civil liberties. It only wants the war to end, and favors a government run by progressive Democrats rather than a government run by Republicans.
Sadly, the Times error has played into the right's hands. It stumbled. The newspaper looks like another wartime casualty.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Bizzyblog's Tom Blumer And A New York Times Writer Go Mano a Mano: Timesman Posts Comment On Blumer's Blog
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Ohio's Bizzyblogger Tom Blumer ripped The New York Times for underplaying personal income data to make the Bush years seem dismal. New York Times staff writer David Cay Johnston promptly fired right back with a long comment on Blumer's Website that defended the attack on his economic analytical skills. It wasn't so long ago that journalists ignored blogs, or deemed them too unimportant to dive in with comments. Now a sea change: They appear ready to duke it out. Kudos to Mr. Blumer for attracting such attention. And kudos to Mr. Johnston for punching back. Everyone benefits from the dialogue.
Click the link (above) to Blumer's post, then eyeball Johnson's response, which appears verbatim below. The Timesman says he didn't get into the news biz to make things up:
"You make interesting points — and also some unfair ones, especially leaping to the conclusion that I am dishonest.
"The idea that in the most scrutinized news report in the world I could twist facts for some venal purpose is laughable. We fire reporters who do that and we should.
I have been active in exposing dishonest reporting since 1973. I am the only reporter whose expose of news manipulations and blackouts lead to a broadcast station being sold to avoid losing their licenses (six stations were sold). I have many other published articles on such issues over the decades in both newspapers and journalism publications.
"Readers and reporters can reasonably disagree on what is significant and the choices in the limited space and time I had.
"I did not get into this line of work more than 40 years ago to make things up or twist them. If I wanted to I would have become a novelist or a screenwriter.
I got into it to tell people things they did not know and would not know but for my work. That’s the joy of it. And throughout my career I have found things were not at all as I imagined, including in the world of tax that I have covered for more than a dozen years.
"Given your jaundice it may surprise you to know that I was the reporter — the only reporter — to do the calculations revealing that the very highest income America got a much bigger tax cut from a law signed by Clinton than they did from Bush, reporting this several times in articles and with detailed graphics.
"That is to say, I report the numbers the same way regardless of who is in the White House or any other position of power. My focus is on what happens after the politicians speak and enact laws, not on what they say.
"When I write about one-year changes bloggers criticize me for not taking a longer look at the data. In this article I focused on the peak of the previous economic expansion (and compare it to results going back to 1945) and you accuse me of being dishonest for not cherry picking data from the late 90s.
"It is reasonable to disagree about whether using the high point of the last economic expansion is the most informing measure. It is certainly common to use this measure. Making that choice is neither dishonest nor absurd.
"Behind my article today are extensive spreadsheets I did analyzing the data by income group, components of income (wages, dividends, etc.) and other factors. I then took care to not cherry pick the data, but to select those data points that exemplified what careful checking and cross checking showed. There are problems with using this analysis because of what might be called income bracket creep, which cannot be backed out from the data I relied on.
"EITC is not in the IRS data, which you use as a cudgel against my work. This money totals less than a half of one percent of all income (and is not market income). There are other forms of income not counted as well that you do not mention. For example, this administration and has said that there is widespread and significant understating of non-wage incomes at the top, as did the last.
"That is to say, there is no perfect measure and my article identified the measure I used — income tax data.
"Not in my report today was this finding from my analysis, which in light of your closing comments you may want to ponder:
"Among the under $100,000 income group, comparing 2005 to 2004, the number of taxpayers rose 0.5%, total real AGI fell by -$73 billion, or -1.9 percent, and average AGI incomes declined by -$801 from $33,847 to $33,046.
"In the year 2000 the average AGI (in 2005$) of those making under $100,000 was $35,286. That means, compared to 2005, that average incomes in this group are down -$2,240 or -6.3 percent from the peak year of the economic expansion.
"The figures are not directly comparable because some people moved up and out of that bracket. However, in 2000 this group comprised 90.7% of all taxpayers and it is now 88% of all taxpayers.But that is also not a large change in share of taxpayers.
I cite this to show the care I take to analyze the data fully before I wrote about it and to make sure anomalies are not treated as substance.
"The fact is that average incomes remain below their peak and when you look at groups below $1 million of AGI, which 99.77 percent of all taxpayers in 2005, the declines are clear. It suggests that my reportorial observation about many people feeling economic stress (of which there is plenty of evidence from polls and other sources) is not absurd and does not lack a reasonable basis for mentioning.
"The growth in incomes from 2002 to 2003 is statistically insignificant at 0.2 percent or $99, contrary to your assertions about how many years we have had growth in average incomes.
"Whatever the data show is what I report. If, for example, the data showed that the incomes of those at the bottom were rising I would report that. Oh, gosh, I did report this morning that the number of Americans reporting very low incomes declined by more than 5 percent. That could have been the lede, but average incomes provides a broader measure of greater interest so I lead with that. Reasonable people can disagree without resorting to attacking the reporter’s integrity.
"Comment by David Cay Johnston — August"
Click the link (above) to Blumer's post, then eyeball Johnson's response, which appears verbatim below. The Timesman says he didn't get into the news biz to make things up:
"You make interesting points — and also some unfair ones, especially leaping to the conclusion that I am dishonest.
"The idea that in the most scrutinized news report in the world I could twist facts for some venal purpose is laughable. We fire reporters who do that and we should.
I have been active in exposing dishonest reporting since 1973. I am the only reporter whose expose of news manipulations and blackouts lead to a broadcast station being sold to avoid losing their licenses (six stations were sold). I have many other published articles on such issues over the decades in both newspapers and journalism publications.
"Readers and reporters can reasonably disagree on what is significant and the choices in the limited space and time I had.
"I did not get into this line of work more than 40 years ago to make things up or twist them. If I wanted to I would have become a novelist or a screenwriter.
I got into it to tell people things they did not know and would not know but for my work. That’s the joy of it. And throughout my career I have found things were not at all as I imagined, including in the world of tax that I have covered for more than a dozen years.
"Given your jaundice it may surprise you to know that I was the reporter — the only reporter — to do the calculations revealing that the very highest income America got a much bigger tax cut from a law signed by Clinton than they did from Bush, reporting this several times in articles and with detailed graphics.
"That is to say, I report the numbers the same way regardless of who is in the White House or any other position of power. My focus is on what happens after the politicians speak and enact laws, not on what they say.
"When I write about one-year changes bloggers criticize me for not taking a longer look at the data. In this article I focused on the peak of the previous economic expansion (and compare it to results going back to 1945) and you accuse me of being dishonest for not cherry picking data from the late 90s.
"It is reasonable to disagree about whether using the high point of the last economic expansion is the most informing measure. It is certainly common to use this measure. Making that choice is neither dishonest nor absurd.
"Behind my article today are extensive spreadsheets I did analyzing the data by income group, components of income (wages, dividends, etc.) and other factors. I then took care to not cherry pick the data, but to select those data points that exemplified what careful checking and cross checking showed. There are problems with using this analysis because of what might be called income bracket creep, which cannot be backed out from the data I relied on.
"EITC is not in the IRS data, which you use as a cudgel against my work. This money totals less than a half of one percent of all income (and is not market income). There are other forms of income not counted as well that you do not mention. For example, this administration and has said that there is widespread and significant understating of non-wage incomes at the top, as did the last.
"That is to say, there is no perfect measure and my article identified the measure I used — income tax data.
"Not in my report today was this finding from my analysis, which in light of your closing comments you may want to ponder:
"Among the under $100,000 income group, comparing 2005 to 2004, the number of taxpayers rose 0.5%, total real AGI fell by -$73 billion, or -1.9 percent, and average AGI incomes declined by -$801 from $33,847 to $33,046.
"In the year 2000 the average AGI (in 2005$) of those making under $100,000 was $35,286. That means, compared to 2005, that average incomes in this group are down -$2,240 or -6.3 percent from the peak year of the economic expansion.
"The figures are not directly comparable because some people moved up and out of that bracket. However, in 2000 this group comprised 90.7% of all taxpayers and it is now 88% of all taxpayers.But that is also not a large change in share of taxpayers.
I cite this to show the care I take to analyze the data fully before I wrote about it and to make sure anomalies are not treated as substance.
"The fact is that average incomes remain below their peak and when you look at groups below $1 million of AGI, which 99.77 percent of all taxpayers in 2005, the declines are clear. It suggests that my reportorial observation about many people feeling economic stress (of which there is plenty of evidence from polls and other sources) is not absurd and does not lack a reasonable basis for mentioning.
"The growth in incomes from 2002 to 2003 is statistically insignificant at 0.2 percent or $99, contrary to your assertions about how many years we have had growth in average incomes.
"Whatever the data show is what I report. If, for example, the data showed that the incomes of those at the bottom were rising I would report that. Oh, gosh, I did report this morning that the number of Americans reporting very low incomes declined by more than 5 percent. That could have been the lede, but average incomes provides a broader measure of greater interest so I lead with that. Reasonable people can disagree without resorting to attacking the reporter’s integrity.
"Comment by David Cay Johnston — August"
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Anti-War March In DC: Protestor Spits At Vet
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Will this single overheated moment seriously harm the anti-war movement? An Iraq War veteran who lost his right leg below the knee at Ramadi was heckling the large throngs of anti-war protesters marching Saturday in Washington. Apparently, things got boisterous and somebody spit towards the soldier, Joshua Sparling, who spit right back.
Today, reports of the incident are spreading rapidly among veterans groups because it conjures up ugly memories of the Vietnam era, when servicemen often were targets for verbal abuse and worse. [Ed Note: I was spit at in New Orleans in 1970 while in Army uniform on leave from Fort Polk, La. It landed near my shoulder, and was horrifying to a kid who had answered his draft notice. I was in the military because I had drawn No. 56 in the December 1969 draft lottery, the only lottery I ever won.]
Lest anybody think the spitting incident Saturday is Internet fiction, there is this account from Sunday's New York Times (page 20 National Edition), whose reporter Ian Urbina seems to have been a witness:
"There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling, who was not scheduled to speak, addressed the counterprotesters to voice his support for the administration's policies in Iraq.
Later, an antiwar protester passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.
"Capital police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.
"'These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned,' Mr. Sparling
said."
I think the anti-war spitter was an incredible fool. Sparling had a right to express his opinion. I am no fan of President George W. Bush and his war policies. I will apologize to Corporal Sparling for what happened. And I salute his service and his sacrifice.
Today, reports of the incident are spreading rapidly among veterans groups because it conjures up ugly memories of the Vietnam era, when servicemen often were targets for verbal abuse and worse. [Ed Note: I was spit at in New Orleans in 1970 while in Army uniform on leave from Fort Polk, La. It landed near my shoulder, and was horrifying to a kid who had answered his draft notice. I was in the military because I had drawn No. 56 in the December 1969 draft lottery, the only lottery I ever won.]
Lest anybody think the spitting incident Saturday is Internet fiction, there is this account from Sunday's New York Times (page 20 National Edition), whose reporter Ian Urbina seems to have been a witness:
"There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling, who was not scheduled to speak, addressed the counterprotesters to voice his support for the administration's policies in Iraq.
Later, an antiwar protester passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.
"Capital police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.
"'These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned,' Mr. Sparling
said."
I think the anti-war spitter was an incredible fool. Sparling had a right to express his opinion. I am no fan of President George W. Bush and his war policies. I will apologize to Corporal Sparling for what happened. And I salute his service and his sacrifice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)