Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NY Times Quote Issue

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NY Times Quote Issue

    This is hilarious

  • #2
    No comments? Hmmm.

    Comment


    • #3
      Did you read both articles?
      Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

      Comment


      • #4
        Yes, I did.

        Comment


        • #5
          When I read both, I didn't think as much of the quotes when read in the entire article.
          Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

          Comment


          • #6


            You have a guy who is the same that in one is a republican and another an independent.

            Now he may have changed over the last 20 days, but come on, as a reporter do I really need to rely on the same guy for quotes to make two different points?

            At best it's sloppy. At worst it's disingenious.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by pgrote@Feb 22 2004, 05:28 PM


              You have a guy who is the same that in one is a republican and another an independent.

              Now he may have changed over the last 20 days, but come on, as a reporter do I really need to rely on the same guy for quotes to make two different points?

              At best it's sloppy. At worst it's disingenious.
              yeah I saw that part, but i think he was consistent in his point of view in both articles.
              Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

              Comment


              • #8
                Turns out there is more to it.

                Interesting.

                Rosenthal admits she made a mistake, citing Meagher's involvement in Bush's 2000 campaign (which she mentioned in her Sunday piece) as the root of her confusion. She says that the two different quotes were pulled from the same interview, conducted during the run-up to the South Carolina primary. Meagher says he can't remember exactly what he said nearly a month ago, but he confirms he was interviewed just once.
                So the reporter says she was confused when she said former Republican. I can understand that.

                Taking the same quote, from the same person and changing the description of the person is not right, though. It slants the tone and meaning of the article.

                I wonder how much of this is done?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Looks like the guy said it, right?

                  The NYT prints the equivalent of a 300-page novel every day and this is the best the bright lights at instapundit can come up with?

                  Moe
                  The Dude abides.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Moe_Szyslak@Feb 23 2004, 05:03 PM
                    The NYT prints the equivalent of a 300-page novel every day and this is the best the bright lights at instapundit can come up with?
                    So it doesn't concern you that:

                    A) He was never a republican?
                    B) He changed from being a former republican to an independent.
                    C) That the reporter reused a quote without noting it?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What's supposed to be so terrible about reusing quotes?

                      As for focusing in and harping on one little mistake, why this one? What's so bad about it?
                      Damn these electric sex pants!

                      26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10

                      Bring back the death penalty for corporations!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I have an issue with reusing a quote that is that old. I have an issue with changing the description of the person to fit the story.

                        That's what I have an issue with.

                        This isn't a little mistake, guys. It shows that the media shapes stories based on their angle to support their premises.

                        Simple as that.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Are you kidding. There is no bias in media. They are completely objective. Maybe you should get your facts straight mr grote.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            helped Bush in 2000 = Republican

                            How on earth could anyone have made that mistake?

                            I work with people who are quoted in the paper on almost daily basis, I don't think any of them have the expectation that it can only be a one-time deal.

                            You talk to a reporter and put it out there and it's out there.
                            Damn these electric sex pants!

                            26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10

                            Bring back the death penalty for corporations!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The "victim" should sue, so he can make it a REAL federal case. My bet: case dismissed. Much ado about squat.

                              Moe
                              The Dude abides.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X