Posted November 4, 200618 yr This is hilarious, so all you NYT lovers listen up. Here is an exerpt from an article posted on NationalReview.com. The full article is here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTdlODUxNzQzNzkyMjUyOTJmYzBlYmQ2MWJkZDU5ZWI= Fooling the Times Reporters at the newspaper of record get taken for a ride. By William McGowan ...In an obituary that ran in November of 2003, the Times’s Douglas Martin, a longtime metro-beat vet, reported that a prominent Harlem photographer had a twin brother to whom he was so close that when the brother died of testicular cancer in 1993, the photographer had his own testicles removed in solidarity with his sibling. An ensuring correction acknowledged, however, that the first brother had died of prostate cancer and, in fact, the photographer had not had his testicles removed in response. The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz called it the “Correction of the Month.” Erroneous facts in response to the deceased — or not yet deceased, as the case may be — were reported just a few weeks later when the Times ran an obituary on the singer, actress, and dancer Katherine Sergava, who had appeared in the original production of Oklahoma!. The Times reported that the she had died November 11 in Palm Springs, California, “where she had settled in the mid-1960s.” As the New York Post reported, Katherine Sergava was not dead at all, but living in an Upper Westside nursing home.
November 6, 200618 yr Every paper sucks, that's why I get my news from a reliable source: Fox News. ;)
November 6, 200618 yr Every paper sucks, that's why I get my news from a reliable source: Fox News. ;) you should be watching the most trusted name in news! CNN!!!
November 6, 200618 yr Every paper sucks, that's why I get my news from a reliable source: Fox News. ;) you should be watching the most trusted name in news! CNN!!! I only believe Jeff Tancheck
November 7, 200618 yr >what the hell is "saltimbancery" Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source Saltimbanco \Sal`tim*ban"co\, n. [it., literally, one who leaps or mounts upon a bench; saltare to leap + in in, upon + banco a bench.] A mountebank; a quack. [Obs.] [Written also santinbanco.] Saltimbancos, quacksalvers, and charlatans. --Sir T. Browne. >>>And savor the only appearance of the word currently to be found on the internet (from an essay published in 1914 by art critic Clive Bell, you might have to read this essay in a 100 level art history survey and most certainly would in a class covering Modernism): Naturally, it is said that if there is little representation and less saltimbancery in primitive art, that is because the primitives were unable to catch a likeness or cut intellectual capers.
November 7, 200618 yr ^ I've got a slightly larger than normal vocabulary and I have much smarter than average friends. Nevertheless, I do believe I'd get my ass kicked for using that word.
November 7, 200618 yr My, aren't you the recalcitrant pugilist. Your bellicosity is most disconcerting.
November 11, 200618 yr I honestly thought saltimbancery had something to do with thin slices of veal, with prosciutto and a wine sauce, maybe some capers...yum.
November 11, 200618 yr ^ exactly, in fact i may even have heard julia child and lidia bastianich use that word, but certainly not lowbrows like bobby flay or rachel ray.
November 12, 200618 yr what does any of this have to do with Ohio and Urbanism!? :-P Oh yes, and I agree that that is far too much reading for me to care
November 12, 200618 yr What it has to do with Ohio: (A bit of a stretch) The article mentions P&G. What the main point of the article is: The New York Times is unreliable. The have had numerous retractions and corrections causing them to lose credibility. Their tendency to be slow to investigate issues concerning minority rights and government scrutiny has cause them to publish articles that are false, misleading, and just plain ridiculous. The are not hiring responsible journalists and their bosses aren't doing proper follow-up with articles. The point- don't take what the Times writes as fact. Do your own investigating.
November 12, 200618 yr The point (I think) of its mention of P&G is that one of the easiest ways to get hired at a major paper (from what I've heard) is to do business reporting. A lot of young reporters are assigned crime & courts reporting (for example, an Enquirer intern might be assigned the Boone County courthouse beat) and the goal for most is to move up but not to become senior business writer. A business reporter is almost always doing traditional reporting, not the sort of riffing commonly seen in the NY Times. The NY Times intimidates people because it has a volume of staff content that far surpasses any other paper in the country, almost never running wire stories or even using wire photos. People want to write there not only because more people read their work but also because they are given much more autonomy than at most daily papers and typically run much longer and involved stories. But this is also where the place runs into trouble. I also don't think National Review is particularly wonderful. William F. Buckley (who started it) and George Will (who doesn't write for NR) have been the leading conservative writers for decades because each is a great writer in the traditional sense, controlling the tempo and typically achieving a lot with each sentence, aside from effortlessly recalling relevant historical events that the mainstream media forgot three days after they happened (and the schools today certainly don't teach). The rest of NR's staff plays like a broken record in my opinion, using the same fundamental mechanism that fuels Fox News' success, which is making the viewer feel like they're "on their side" and also attacking academics. The viewer or reader is never really challenged by aggressive use of the medium itself or by particularly confrontational opinions. Writers to have a lot of autonomy and do frequently disagree with each other, though.
November 12, 200618 yr What it has to do with Ohio: (A bit of a stretch) The article mentions P&G. What the main point of the article is: The New York Times is unreliable. The have had numerous retractions and corrections causing them to lose credibility. Their tendency to be slow to investigate issues concerning minority rights and government scrutiny has cause them to publish articles that are false, misleading, and just plain ridiculous. The are not hiring responsible journalists and their bosses aren't doing proper follow-up with articles. The point- don't take what the Times writes as fact. Do your own investigating. lets not go overboard just because they sort of slammed some dull business to make a point, even if it is local. the nytimes is the best all around np in country if not the world. yes the grey lady is famously not perfect and yes there are areas it does not excel in. still, funny thing is it's faults are probably more well known or just as well known to you as your own local np's are, which i think says a lot. so my question is, are you implying there is a better paper? because in the american np world there isn't. i mean come on, if i could get one daily np delivered to me while stuck on a desert island it sure isnt going to be the plain dealer, nor the other ohio dailies either -- it's going to be the same one you or anybody would want, the nytimes, snobbiness and occasional errors and all. also, i'd expand your final suggestion to say you should read other sources and do your own investigating to follow up anything you read anywhere before you buy into it.
November 12, 200618 yr Fair enough. I will revise my final point: Don't take everything the Times or any other paper says as fact. Read other sources and do your own investigating and become as knowledgable about the issues as possible. As far as what paper I would get if I could only get one on a deserted island....the Washington Times....no actually I don't know. I've had a very good experience with the Cincinnati Enquirer. I would DEFINATELY not got the Plain Dealer. And I personally don't like the NYTimes. Nothing personal. Just don't like it. Too much opinion stuff and not enough reporting the news stuff.
Create an account or sign in to comment