Comments on: Hugh’s Suggestion

By: David

David — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 13:46:21 +0000

It seems odd that the Times might cover up CBS’s misdeeds, when they were so open about their own Jason Blair and Judith Miller. Nevertheless, unlike WaPo, they have gone no farther than CBS so far. Those who depend on the Times for their news still think it’s uncertain whether the documents were forged. Sadly, I expect the Times to support the final report, even if it’s a whitewash.

Perhaps one reason is that the CBS’s errors involved unfair attacks on Republicans. The Times errors to which they confessed were not of that type.

By: Les Nessman

Les Nessman — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:01:01 +0000

“Let’s hope so because, like or not, they still have much greater facilities for such of an investigation than we do.”

Do they? The blogosphere contains thousands and thousands of experts in every aspect of life. People with firsthand knowledge of fonts, military protocol, Kinko’s operations, mental health, office politics at CBS, slander lawsuits, et cetera ad infinitum. The NYT has senior editors who will be loathe to embarrass ‘their guys’.

If the NYT has greater investigative facilities, they won’t for long as the blogosphere grows.

By: richard mcenroe

richard mcenroe — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 00:09:47 +0000

Jim Geraghty over at National Review Online is speculating that they won’t release the report while Dan is playing reporter in Asia…

Maybe if someone leaks it we can get him to defect. I’m sure North Korea would appreciate his worldview…

By: Terrye

Terrye — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:43:14 +0000

So far nothing.

I wonder if they will drag this out?

By: Korla Pundit

Korla Pundit — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 17:32:29 +0000

>Are you looking to get traffic Korla, or is there some purpose?

Just having some harmless fun with Dan. But it’s also in tribute to the bloggers who have made a difference in applying some accountability to the media, which is something they’ve never had to deal with before.

By: Silicon valley Jim

Silicon valley Jim — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:48:53 +0000

But at least equally significant will be the response of The New York Times---Roger Why? Because the Times has the third-largest (I think) circulation of any newspaper in the United States, behind only the Wall Street Journal, which is not really a general-interest newspaper, and USA Today, which is, let's face it, not as serious a newspaper as the Times, although I don't hold USA Today in the contempt in which the chattering classes do. (Also, neither of them publishes on week-ends). Because the Times has the largest circulation in our nation's largest city. Because it's the newspaper about which all of us conservatives talk. I've despised it for about thirty years, but I don't think that there can be much doubt that it's America's most influential newspaper. Like it or not, its editorial and op-ed pages have a huge effect on the thinking of people whose thoughts and actions affect all the rest of us greatly.

By: Terrye

Terrye — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:35:15 +0000

I think CBS will say it was all true and Dan Rahter will get the Edward Murrow award.

If CBS admits wrongdoing of any kind I will be amazed, and if the NYT gives an honest appraisal I will be even more amazed.

They are all liars.

By: Jim in Texas

Jim in Texas — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:48:43 +0000

I suspect it will be a bit like Tom Lehrer’s famous disclosure.

paraphrased;

“If anything I say offends anyone not only will I apologize, but I will swear under oath I never said it in the first place”

By: John Lynch

John Lynch — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:45:03 +0000

The "Shocking Proof" cited by Korla Pundit (above) seems to have a familiar image (see Roger's image from the home page.) This ghostly image is on Korla's own site. Are you looking to get traffic Korla, or is there some purpose?

By: Pat Curley

Pat Curley — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:42:03 +0000

No offense, Roger, but this strikes me as wishful thinking. It’s not the New York Times that has changed, but your perception of it. The scales have fallen from your eyes. You keep hoping that they’ll get over this momentary madness, but the fact is that they were always like this.

The Times will devote one story to this, and one editorial, which will mostly say that the story was unfortunate in that it deflected attention from the real questions that remain yadda yadda yadda.