You, me and everybody else – but especially the New York Times. American Thinker got the scoop on their latest absurdity.
It appears that the Times, once-upon-a-time regarded as the last word in reliability when it comes to checking before publishing (which makes them so much better than blogs, of course), has run a fake photo on the home page of its website. The photo has since been removed from the home page, but still can be seen here.
The photo that appeared on the NYT website is such an obvious fake it’s almost parody off the pages of the Onion. In their apparent zeal to make our forces look bad, they just couldn’t resist. Will that cause any introspection? I doubt it, because they have too much invested in their self-image (not to mention their audience). At least, however, they removed the offending object from their website, which is more than you can say for France 2, which never acknowledged this fake.
The appropriate comparative standard is provided by historical examination of Pravda and Isvestia. Given the presumed intelligence of those who continue to read the NYT there is avsolutely nothing wrong with the use of this photo. It reinforces appropriate themes and builds confidence among those incapable of rational discenment. It would make a great poster at a Moveon rally and (appropriately framed) would fit well on any wall in Howard Dean’s home.
I don’t see the problem.
My policy is to assume that anything in the NYTs is, ummm shall we say, suspect.
The failure to vet this photo and indeed this whole stroy comes as absolutely no surprise. As RB relates, it fits the desired narrative, so that’s all she wrote.
On a non-related matter, I really like the revised PajamasMedia format, and the much improved content on the site. Clearly more user friendly ,and adds considerably more value to the whole Pajamas experience.
Hope this prooves to be a lasting success for all involved.
Actually, the photo isn’t a fake, the caption is just wrong. The photo is really proof that the americans hit, at minimum, an explosive cache and more likely a IED workshop.
If the New York Times is incapable of identifying an artillery shell,possibly a Russian/former Soviet Block 152 MM ball shrapnel round, yellow identifying ring and driving band for obturation,what other “little” details,by which they form their worldview, are they getting wrong?
The pic was actually taken in their “new subscriptions” department. It was apparently their best day in quite some time.
This update at American Thinker is really quite amazing:
This seems to come down to one simple fact: the quality and editorial control at the New York Times is no better, and in some cases much worse, than that of your average amateur blogger. In this case some people are using that as a defense. However, I think that fact tends to unravel certain myths about trusting the MSM in general.
If the NYTimes brand is applied to shoddy workmanship, in whichever venue, isn’t that an indication of low standards? Why should we trust that brand when it’s applied in other places? Why should we trust it at all? There are no defenses here, there are reasons, but they don’t erase the fault. The defense above is no better than saying “I plowed into that car at 80 mph because I was drunk.”
Puff nailed it. The average tribal village (unlike those of Yugoslavia in the 90s) does not possess shootin’ irons of that caliber. But such fused projectiles are just right for use as IEDs – and posed propaganda photos for the New York Times.
And the Times drama critic should recommend the kid an A in his drama class, too.
ìThis seems to come down to one simple fact: the quality and editorial control at the New York Times is no better, and in some cases much worse, than that of your average amateur blogger.î
The New York Times is a very sloppily run newspaper. This did not happen overnight. In the past, the readers naively trusted its editors to act professionally. We obviously were suckers.
The Times would likely still be getting away with its nonsense if it were not for the blogging community. Itís so much easier today to double check the accuracy of the MSM. The Internet has changed everything.