Uh…nah! It just doesn’t have the same *snap* for verb-ization like, say, “Bork” does.

The New York Times established a public editor slot at the paper in the wake of the Jayson Blair debacle. Now, they’re looking to abolish the position once Byron Calame’s term is up in May….

Is anybody else nauseated by the rank hypocrasy involved in such libtardism?

RH

“Experts.”……

Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect.

No, this is exactly the type of biased garbage we expect from the NYT. NYT Motto: “We’ll tell you what is accurate and fair; you are too stupid.”

“I also think that if the author and we editors knew of the contents of that third ruling, we would have qualified what we said about Ms. Climaco. Which is NOT to say that I simply accept the third ruling as ‘true’; El Salvador’s judicial system is terribly politicized.”

In other words, the medical evidence that the woman’s baby was born alive is suspect because it would derail a US journalist’s opinion otherwise. Disgusting.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Nice to see Calame calling one of his reporters on such a poorly-researched story….

gag.

There was a relatively non-partisan era in American journalism . . . .

Partisanship and bias aside, why have other news sources not picked up this gross journalistic lapse? When Dan Rather made an absolute ass of himself, the rest of the MSM defended him. They gave him a lifetime achievement award, for goodness sake. Reuters w/fauxtography, AP w/Capt Jamil: These aren’t just lapses is journalism, they are gross ethical flaws. But what makes it worse is that there is no competitive urge in the MSM to expose their competitors’ shady dealings. Is this professional courtesy or groupthink? Or do they feel that they are all guilty of the same shoddy practices?

I think it is just the leftist view of what is abortion. She didn’t want it, so therefore it was an abortion, not murder, by choice.

Yep lsutiger, that’s it. She would have had an abortion if it had been legal and available. It wasn’t, so she committed retroactive abortion. To break it down:
. the fact that she had to give birth at all is an outrage in and of itself;
. there was no way she was going to keep the fetus, having “chosen” to “abort” it;
. therefore, the state forced her to kill the fetus after it was born.
. And now, having deprived her of her rights, they have the gall to convict her of murder and deprive her of even more? It’s George Orwell, I tell you!

So yes, the story is “fake but accurate”, or more correctly, “inaccurate but real”.

The problem here is that from reading the story, we don’t necessarily know if abortion is unavailable (legal is another matter). If she had wanted to abort the fetus, was it truly impossible to manage? What if she murdered her baby fair & square then engaged the abortion rights group post facto (or they her) based on the mere claim of having wanted an abortion? (On the idea that such an argument would actually get her, of all things, sympathy by the likes of the New York Times?)

For a full four decades now, the print and TV “media” have been nothing more than House Organs of the Left and the Demos, and anyone who says otherwise is lying or engaging in self-delusion

We are here in the blog-o-sphere because the MSM are, as the above case proves once again, are useless lying tools