NYT: Say, maybe we should have waited for the facts before blaming the Right

posted at 1:55 pm on January 17, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Don’t worry, though, because the New York Times’ public editor (their term for ombudsman) “shares the view to an extent” (emphasis mine) that the Times and the media rushed to put the Tucson shootings in a political context.  Well, that’s certainly a relief.  So whose fault was it that the Times pursued it to the extent of having its editorial board issue an essay the very next day putting the blame on the Right, saying that “it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats”?  Uh … genetics, or something:

So why does a story get framed this way? Journalism educators characterize this kind of framing as a storytelling habit — one of relating new facts to an existing storyline — and also as a reflex of news organizations that are built to handle some topics well, and others less well.

Jerry Ceppos, dean of the journalism school at the University of Nevada, Reno, said journalists’ impulse to quickly impose a frame on a story is “genetic.”

“Journalists developed automatic framing protocols generations ago because of the need to report quickly,” he said. “Today’s hyper-deadlines, requiring journalists to report all day long and all night long, made that genetic disposition even more dominant.”

To be fair, there were some good reasons to steer the coverage initially in this direction. As Rick Berke, the national editor, said: “Our coverage early on was broad and touched everything from the possible shooter to the victims to the reaction to, yes, the political climate in Arizona. By our count, there were 49 stories in the paper the first six days after the tragedy, of which only 14 were political in nature. But it would be ridiculous for us to neglect that. After all, a politician was shot in the head while meeting with constituents. That same lawmaker had her office vandalized during an especially rancorous campaign. And after the shooting the sheriff called his state the capital of hatred and bigotry.”

Still, I think the intense focus on political conflict — not just by The Times — detracted from what has emerged as the salient story line, that of a mentally ill individual with lawful access to a gun.

Er, no, to be fair, there were no good reasons to steer the coverage in any direction.  In fact, Arthur Brisbane’s notion that steering coverage of a breaking event is journalism should come as a rude awakening to the few defenders the Times still has.  Why “steer the coverage” at all until the facts came out?  Within a couple of hours, the gunman had been identified and enough was known about him to understand that he was a lunatic, not a political activist.  Yet even after those facts became known and verified, the editorial board published its attack on the Right, implicitly blaming conservatives for the tragedy while using just enough weasel words to cover their own rear ends in case the witch hunt blew up in its face.

Ironically, Brisbane starts off the column by scolding the Times’ bloggers for repeating the erroneous NPR report of Giffords’ death without having its editors fact-check it first:

Ms. McElroy said, “I should have looked at every change,” but she thought Mr. Goodman was referring to small stuff. Mr. Goodman told me he then erred by reporting Representative Giffords’s death in the lead as though The Times itself were standing behind the information. In any event, Ms. McElroy had said O.K. without seeing that change, so Mr. Goodman pushed the button.

The result was a news story with changes that were not edited. Less than 10 minutes later, a new story appeared with the words “and killed” stricken.

“Nobody should self-publish,” said Philip B. Corbett, standards editor for The Times. “Everything should go through an editor. Ideally, it should go through two editors.”

Why?  So that they can “steer the coverage” to their liking?   In the case of the Times, the editors appear to be the problem, not the solution.  The failure of the Times on this story had nothing to do with self-publishing a factual error that they quickly corrected, but an editorial decision to focus on a meme that was known to be false long before the editors themselves hit the publish button.  Brisbane apparently doesn’t want to talk about that; he’d prefer that the Times stick to giving its readers one bum steer after another.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Drive-by media shoots and loots, then comes in to cover the story to find out who did it.

SouthernGent on January 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Sarah Palin made them do it.

ronsfi on January 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Remember, the NYT is the best unit the enemy can throw at us.

Heh.

Akzed on January 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

They can’t help their reflective knee jerk…

Gohawgs on January 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

So maybe they should blame the left ???

tarpon on January 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Circling the drain.

Rational Thought on January 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Only fits fit to print.

Dhuka on January 17, 2011 at 2:03 PM

On the other hand . . . did anyone expect anything more from the New York Times? Except for the elitist left, this newspaper is irrelevant and unworthy of serious consideration.

rplat on January 17, 2011 at 2:03 PM

If every thing they say, do and think is through the prism of leftist dogma it should be no surprise their articles would reflect that ideology.

fourdeucer on January 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

So whose fault was it that the Times pursued it to the extent of having its editorial board issue an essay the very next day putting the blame on the Right,

Ed, when are you going to stop misrepresenting that article? It clearly states:

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

What is Jayson Blair still working for them?

Tommy_G on January 17, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Say, maybe we should have waited for Lucy Ramirez to get us the facts before blaming the Right

Finished the thought for the NYT.

BobMbx on January 17, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Genetic, huh? Is this a maternal or paternal trait? Have they found the “jounOlist gene”?

What’s sad is they actually expect their reader to buy this garbage.

What’s even sadder is that most of them will…

BKeyser on January 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

I never read the NYT and I never click on links to them. I read Ed or Allah’s analysis of what they wrote and the readers comments but I don’t infest my mind with the actual article garbage.

CCRWM on January 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

The timing of all this is perfect because The Slimes just sent me a postage-paid envelope with which to order their paper of record. It just so happens I have an 1/8″ thick piece of steel that fits the envelope perfectly.

A thousand cuts, baby, a thousand cuts.

NTWR on January 17, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Gee, you think so?

The moment I saw Uncle Fester’s YouTube page, I knew he wasn’t donkey, elephant or tea–he was TINFOIL!

Shouldn’t have gone off when you first heard of the shooting, then doubled down, shouldn’t you? Feckless, brainless fartnuggets!

Sekhmet on January 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM

For Crr6 to contemplate:

That same lawmaker had her office vandalized during an especially rancorous campaign. And after the shooting the sheriff called his state the capital of hatred and bigotry.”

E. Cantors’ office had a window shot out during the campaign. Not a word about rhetoric as a possible cause to incite a mental whack job in the NYT. Directly or indirectly.

BobMbx on January 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Quit cherry picking. The very next sentence is this …

“But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge”.

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Maybe.

ncborn on January 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Until the Krug-ster comes out and apologies for libel, then Brisbane’s words are empty.

Plus – the public is outraged at the blood libel – which continued unchecked for a week until the One’s speech – but Brisbane spins his wheels on the initial reporting.

johnboy on January 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

And the next time an incident of this type happens, they’ll do exactly the same thing.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on January 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

CCRWM on January 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Too good to swim with rest of us, eh?

Thats a sign of over-intellect. Lot’s of that going around. I’d get that checked.

BobMbx on January 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

“it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats”?

Call me crazy, but isn’t it possible that people are angry with the Democrats because of the Democrats? No, it must be because the right told them to be mad at Democrats. It can’t possibly be because of anything the Democrats have done, right?

Pablo on January 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM

I’m shocked by the majority of the comments over there. They make too much sense. Are their readers turning on the Old Gray Lady?

Knucklehead on January 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Hey, we were just trying to dress up a dull story. Defaming the Right is our go-to strategy for that!

– The New York Times

Cicero43 on January 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Brisbane apparently doesn’t want to talk about that; he’d prefer that the Times stick to giving its readers one bum steer after another.

that’s pretty sad.

ted c on January 17, 2011 at 2:15 PM

“Journalists developed automatic framing protocols generations ago because of the need to report quickly,”

Who’d a thought that journolists invented the technology necessary for reporting of events from a airborne or space vehicle to the ground? And, not only that, they invented one of the key concepts of packet switching networks — the prime example today being the Internet.

Al Gore certainly had competition.

unclesmrgol on January 17, 2011 at 2:15 PM

NYT: We have always been at war with Oceana

BobMbx on January 17, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Call me crazy, but isn’t it possible that people are angry with the Democrats because of the Democrats?

Pablo on January 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Yes, so anything that happens will be the fault of democrats.

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Remember, the NYT is the best unit the enemy can throw at us.

Heh.

Akzed on January 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

No wonder they’re losing the war battle conflict.. whatever.

Chip on January 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Ed: Allow me to be the first to congratulate you on your most constructive dealings with the newly pressing issue of civil discourse. An example for us all. While I expect to fall from grace from time to time, I am making a valiant effort too. Re the NYT: Their level of prevarication has risen to to new and not entirely welcome heights these last few years.(now isn’t that nicer than bluntly saying they are full of sh%t liars as I might have done before my re-habilitation)

jeanie on January 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Call me crazy, but isn’t it possible that people are angry with the Democrats because of the Democrats? No, it must be because the right told them to be mad at Democrats. It can’t possibly be because of anything the Democrats have done, right?

Pablo on January 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Rule 1: Liberals are born with divine knowledge
Rule 2: If the facts of the argument appear to be in favor of the conservative, rule 1 applies.

BobMbx on January 17, 2011 at 2:18 PM

And the next time an incident of this type happens, they’ll do exactly the same thing.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on January 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Of course! Remember James Lee? The Discovery building shooter? The guy was a rabid enviro-leftist who actually said he was spurred by Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth sham movie.

Media: “crickets*

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Hey NYT, ever think of trying this innovative idea?

Why not report the news BASED ENTIRELY ON THE FACTS, without ANY bias OR opinion of the reporter covering the story, and then present the story BASED ENTIRELY ON THE FACTS, and let the readers draw their own conclusions afterward?

I realize how “old-school” that may sound, especially to the educated, sophisticated breed of “journalists” you have mangling and manipulating the news over there at The Grey Lady these days; but for some odd reason, that method just described always seems to work……just like it did when journalism was in its infancy several hundred years ago.

pilamaye on January 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM

The majority of political hatred and violence in our country comes from the left. The left will not accept that because they believe that those factors help them win elections, and they are probably right. Nothing will change until they consistently lose elections because of their hatred and violence.

slickwillie2001 on January 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Ed, when are you going to stop misrepresenting that article? It clearly states:

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

But indirectly, it’s totally okay!

Missy on January 17, 2011 at 2:23 PM

“Nobody should self-publish,” said Philip B. Corbett, standards editor for The Times. “Everything should go through an editor. Ideally, it should go through two editors.”

He doesn’t just mean the bloggers at the Times. If it weren’t for the internet, the self appointed gatekeepers of political discourse would have gotten away with their libel.

RadClown on January 17, 2011 at 2:24 PM

How can Obams’s minions back pedal…when Barry can’t even pedal and steer… Worst President EVAH

roflmao

donabernathy on January 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Quit cherry picking. The very next sentence is this …

“But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge”.

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Ok…what’s your point? Where did I cherry pick? The language you quoted blames heated rhetoric for a “gale of anger” and increased threats in general, but the language I quoted explicitly says that the rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting in particular. Yet Ed writes:

. So whose fault was it that the Times pursued it to the extent of having its editorial board issue an essay the very next day putting the blame on the Right

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Why not report the news BASED ENTIRELY ON THE FACTS, without ANY bias OR opinion of the reporter covering the story, and then present the story BASED ENTIRELY ON THE FACTS, and let the readers draw their own conclusions afterward?

pilamaye on January 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Because the left would be exposed for what it really is and evaporate within a month?

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Journalism educators characterize this kind of framing as a storytelling habit

aka: pathological lying

Scrappy on January 17, 2011 at 2:27 PM

It’s not journalism , it’s blood libel journOlism.

the_nile on January 17, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Unfortunately, during a few of those minutes on Jan. 8, The Times had the story wrong. In that brief window of time, NYTimes.com was reporting that Representative Gabrielle Giffords was dead of gunshot wounds. The error and some other aspects of the coverage of the Tucson shootings illustrate how difficult it is in the current environment to be both timely and authoritative.

Translation: We may have made some tiny, fleeting, insignifanct mistakes, but, you have to admit, this whole news thingy is really, really hard.

steebo77 on January 17, 2011 at 2:28 PM

“steer the coverage” and the reason most journalism majors state for pursuing that discipline-”I want to make a difference”.
Any questions?

Amendment X on January 17, 2011 at 2:28 PM

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Yet it didn’t (and still doesn’t) stop the NY Times from doing so.

angryed on January 17, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Ok…what’s your point? Where did I cherry pick? The language you quoted blames heated rhetoric for a “gale of anger” and increased threats in general, but the language I quoted explicitly says that the rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting in particular.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members.

What’s your point? They say they’re responsible indirectly and the very next sentence says how.

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 2:29 PM

So why does a story get framed this way? Journalism educators characterize this kind of framing as a storytelling habit — one of relating new facts to an existing storyline — and also as a reflex of news organizations that are built to handle some topics well, and others less well.

So much easier to ‘frame’ a ‘story’ than to report the facts, isn’t it?

How about leaving off the editorializing until the actual facts are known instead of pushing a ‘storyline’? Because ‘storylines’ are full of cliches that trivialize individuals while playing up stereotypes that fit the ‘storyline’.

Because of those predetermined stereotypes within a ‘storyline’ news organizations are caught off-guard and pushing garbage out the door when simple, easy, non-spin, non-storyline reporting is performed and reporters and editors don’t feel the need to inject a ‘storyline’ due to their ‘genetic’ predispositions that are entirely learned ones. In this case simple, “just the facts, ma’am” reporting would have done wonders for civility and reigning in the worst excesses of reporters, commentators and the editorial staff of the NYT.

Too bad they are ‘gentically’ unable to do that.

I would read articles that just dealt with facts and left the ‘storyline’ out. I’m beginning to suspect that most Americans would like that, too.

ajacksonian on January 17, 2011 at 2:29 PM

The majority of political hatred and violence in our country comes from the left. The left will not accept that because they believe that those factors help them win elections, and they are probably right. Nothing will change until they consistently lose elections because of their hatred and violence.

slickwillie2001 on January 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Exactly. The left fights the right with everything it has. What does the right do? Slobber all over Obama’s speech in Tucson.

They bring a 9mm to the fight. We bring a Swiss Army knife.

angryed on January 17, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Talk radio would be soporific without some sharp commentary.

The NYT et al want to make all electronic commentary a bromide so nobody will listen to descriptions of the horrible course of the present administration and the effects of the socialist pestilence.

I wonder how different things would be if Acorn, the UAW, SEIU and the NEA ran successful radio or cable talk shows. BTW, note how few on the list, save the courageous UAW, like to have their issues discussed. It is like they are hiding something, Dr. Krauthammer.

Hhhhmmm..

IlikedAUH2O on January 17, 2011 at 2:31 PM

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM

The entire gist of the media backpedaling is well, the Republicans weren’t responsible this time, but they easily could have been.

C’mon. At least be honest enough to admit their smear failed but in retreat they’re still smearing.

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 2:32 PM

“Journalists developed automatic framing protocols generations ago because of the need to report quickly,” he said.

Translation: Our Leftist-Oppressive minds are made up, don’t confuse us with the facts.

Colbyjack on January 17, 2011 at 2:32 PM

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM

As plain as day and you still can’t see it. The NYT did everything it could to use this incident to paint the right with a broad brush and you’re willfully blind to it. Your quoting of half-hearted disclaimers followed by statements which contradict them is a joke.

Scrappy on January 17, 2011 at 2:33 PM

The Tucson shootings afforded another, quite different illustration of the pressure of time in news coverage — not pressure measured in seconds and minutes, but pressure that news organizations feel to define the context of a story, to set up a frame for it, sometimes before the facts can be fully understood.

Translation: I know and you know that I’m technically not allowed to admit it, but our Democratic-Party-operative minders expect results from us and sometimes (okay, oftentimes) that might necessitate willful ignorance of the known facts and gleeful invention to fill in the gaps. This is the context in which we work; this is the context for which we work.

steebo77 on January 17, 2011 at 2:33 PM

mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party

Perfect double speak this… and it goes on: But it is

legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge”.

I guess the implication here is that there are certain to be other madmen in the future who will be brought to violence by the right.

jeanie on January 17, 2011 at 2:35 PM

I hope to read a report of the death of NPR but would settle for a report of the death of public funding of NPR.

I am ashamed to have been a corp. sponser of their years ago.

seven on January 17, 2011 at 2:35 PM

What a bunch of pure sh!t. Let me put it in other terms: The NY Times has an unchanging narrative that all stories must conform to: that the Right is a bunch of self-serving, violent-prone, prehistoric idiots who somehow manage to thwart the advance of clearly enlightened thinking with their jackbooted ways.

MaxMBJ on January 17, 2011 at 2:36 PM

angryed on January 17, 2011 at 2:30 PM

A local “conservative” columnist in Colorado defended Governor Palin but did admit the right was way too strong at times!

And The One’s speech was marvelous.

I would like to hit him with a snowball but he would sue me. These Rinos make me crazy.

Er…a soft snowball officer…

IlikedAUH2O on January 17, 2011 at 2:36 PM

The Times had a lot of company, as news organizations, commentators and political figures shouldered into an unruly scrum battling over whether the political environment was to blame.

Translation: Looky here, Tea-Partying hoi polloi, you can’t blame us exclusively, because we are not the only ones with Democratic-Party-operative minders to be satisfied.

steebo77 on January 17, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Non apology non accepted.

Bishop on January 17, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Fish wrap…

(poor fish)

Seven Percent Solution on January 17, 2011 at 2:39 PM

What the NYT, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, WAPO, LAT and other radical left-wing “news” outlets did to Sarah, her family, the Tea Party and other Americans who care deeply about this country is reckless, irresponsible and unforgivable.

It was the lowest form of demonization I’ve ever witnessed in my 46 years. The pure hatred demonstrated by the left has permanently altered any emotion I have for the left. They are sick people that exist only to spew hatred.

BruthaMan on January 17, 2011 at 2:41 PM

This is why it’s so pervasive and relentless, they actually believe this stuff. This is their reality.

It’s not like they say “How can we screw the right with this?” They start off with the default position that it’s the right’s fault and after careful consideration and introspection… they still believe it.

People citing facts are wholly irrelevant because it all goes back to the one thing they “know”, and it can all be worked around that.

Dash on January 17, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Meanwhile, opportunities were missed to pick up on evidence — quite apparent as early as that first day — that Jared Lee Loughner, who is charged with the shootings, had a mental disorder and might not have been motivated by politics at all.

Translation: I’m still not gonna say “dude did it ‘cuz dude was crazy.” Because, you know, you Tea Partiers are quite the cranky bunch and sometimes I, too, find myself tempted to engage in violence upon hearing your inflammatory, though quite pedestrian, rhetoric. Additionally, our Democratic-Party-operative minders demand it.

steebo77 on January 17, 2011 at 2:43 PM

So is this a promise to never again criticize Fox News for “develop[ing] automatic framing protocols generations ago because of the need to report quickly”?

Or is it different when it’s someone else’s bias?

JohnJ on January 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM

The pure hatred demonstrated by the left has permanently altered any emotion I have for the left. They are sick people that exist only to spew hatred.

BruthaMan on January 17, 2011 at 2:41 PM

No doubt.

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM

there were some good reasons to steer the coverage

After all, they do think they are the captain of the ship, and we are just the passengers.
Here is some new way of thinking…how about reporting the news, with facts, and let the public do the “steering”.
You should be the windshield of life…there, but unseen, what we look through to see the events.

right2bright on January 17, 2011 at 2:45 PM

So why does a story get framed this way? Journalism educators characterize this kind of framing as a storytelling habit — one of relating new facts to an existing storyline — and also as a reflex of news organizations that are built to handle some topics well, and others less well.

Translation: Now, if I were afforded the luxury of complete candor, “storytelling habit” would more properly have been rendered “political hackery,” “existing storyline” would become “political smear campaign,” and “handle some topics well” would have been written “treat some political parties well.” Alack! Alas! Candor I have none.

steebo77 on January 17, 2011 at 2:47 PM

He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.

sounds almost like a cross between a liberal and a ron Paul supporter.

unseen on January 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM

“Journalists developed automatic framing protocols generations ago because of the need to report quickly,” he said.

Translation: The actual quotation was “Journalists developed automatic conservative-framing protocols decades ago because of the need to smear and libel quickly.”

steebo77 on January 17, 2011 at 2:49 PM

So, it isn’t any inherent, agenda driven political bias?

They were simply ‘born’ that way?

catmman on January 17, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Whether covering the basic facts of a breaking story or identifying more complex themes, the takeaway is that time is often the enemy. Sometimes the best weapon against it is to ignore it, and use a moment to consider the alternatives.

Translation: While time is often the enemy, conservatives always are.

steebo77 on January 17, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Your quoting of half-hearted disclaimers followed by statements which contradict them is a joke.

Scrappy on January 17, 2011 at 2:33 PM

The two statements aren’t contradictory. Statement one says that heated rhetoric has been responsible for increased threats (do you dispute that?) and statement two says that such rhetoric was not responsible for the murders in Tucson. If statement one is true, statement two doesn’t need to be false, and vice versa.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM

At one time, newsies supposedly trusted the people to interpret the facts & saw their job as getting the facts to the people.

Now they peddle their “story” regardless of the facts.

BD57 on January 17, 2011 at 2:55 PM

-”I want to make a difference”.
Any questions?

Amendment X on January 17, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Nope, we have heard that stupid phrase way to frequently, almost as if it were the equivalence to a profundity.

fourdeucer on January 17, 2011 at 2:55 PM

The Blood Libel Times has no remorse.

portlandon on January 17, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Look. They are crazy as sprayed roaches. If you were to ask a sprayed roach why it’s running around twitching and convulsing this is exactly the analysis you would get from it. It is time to stop reading the NYT’s as if it makes sense, tells anything resembling truth or is in any way anything resembling journalism. even the House and Garden section has been co-opted by crazy. Unless you have a degree in psychiatry, don’t try to figure out what they are saying there and why. I feel bad for the employees who aren’t crazy, but there you have it. They have lead in the water there and it’s too late to save them.

BrideOfRove on January 17, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Of course it doesn’t matter anymore. The NYT could have a page one, above the fold story saying that everything they ran for five days was dead wrong and it wouldn’t matter a wit.

The meme is set. In the minds of Leftists, it was and will never be anything but the fault of the Right, everything bad that happens is. And those who aren’t politi-philes as we don’t do the digging or follow-up needed to counteract four or five days of constant innuendo and down right false-reporting from the MSM.

catmman on January 17, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Okay–it’s patently obvious that even after obama’s so-called wonderful speech that little or nothing has changed on either side of the political spectrum. I, for one, would now like to see all this residual energy channeled into defeating Obama. We don’t have lot of time, we don’t have a definitive candidate yet and we need to funnel money to the RNC even if we don’t always approve–IF< IF< IF we want Obama out of the WH.

jeanie on January 17, 2011 at 3:03 PM

The entire gist of the media backpedaling is well

Could you define the “media” and then “backpedaling?” Because I think, with very few exceptions, the media was careful not to blame Republicans for the shooting. Granted, if you include “bloggers” in the media, I suppose that changes things. But in general, I there’s been a lot of talk from the right about the media “blaming Republicans” for the shooting, and scant evidence of that actually occurring.

What’s your point? They say they’re responsible indirectly

Where’s that?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Statement one says that heated rhetoric has been responsible for increased threats (do you dispute that?)

Yes.

Crawford on January 17, 2011 at 3:04 PM

The NYT’s likes to practice what I call PURPLE ELEPHANT journalism. One Day One, they’ll talk about PURPLE ELEPHANTS shooting people. The very next day they will tell you that it’s wrong to think about PURPLE ELEPHANTS.

Next time there’s a shooting, guess what you’ll think of?

GarandFan on January 17, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Could you define the “media” and then “backpedaling?” Because I think, with very few exceptions, the media was careful not to blame Republicans for the shooting. Granted, if you include “bloggers” in the media, I suppose that changes things. But in general, I there’s been a lot of talk from the right about the media “blaming Republicans” for the shooting, and scant evidence of that actually occurring.

Is Pravda, no?

Lordy, you folks sure do toe the line on your talking points.

Crawford on January 17, 2011 at 3:06 PM

steer the coverage

steer (noun): a male bovine animal … castrated before sexual maturity.

Cast the noun to a verb (as in “gifting”) and re-parse.

Kenosha Kid on January 17, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Here in NH we have a fight going on about who will run the GOP here. Bergeron is more mainstream GOP and Kimball(who primaried for governor and lost and is basically a libertarian or Free Stater as they call themselves here and an extreme Tea Partier). If Bergeron wins, I’ll be okay–if Kimball wins I’ll have second thoughts about donating money as he is just too far right for me and most right leaning NH moderates. Not because I don’t like some of his stands but because on his coat tails will come a lot of pols that I definitely do not like. It’s a real problem for me.

jeanie on January 17, 2011 at 3:11 PM

No amount of backpedaling will save the MSM from the Tea Parties next intended task – calling out the media. Time to start making them accountable for this BS.

Shiny_Tiara on January 17, 2011 at 3:12 PM

steer the coverage

steer (noun): a male bovine animal … castrated before sexual maturity.

Cast the noun to a verb (as in “gifting”) and re-parse.

Kenosha Kid on January 17, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Inspired.

steebo77 on January 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Statement one says that heated rhetoric has been responsible for increased threats (do you dispute that?)

Yes.

Crawford on January 17, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Ok, so what else has been responsible for the massive number of death threats against President Obama, and the voluminous incidents of violence against members of Congress prior to 2010 midterms?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Standard leftist tactic #412: Deny reality until people get sick of correcting you, then claim victory.

What does the left do that *isn’t* a lie?

It is nice to hear that crr6 doesn’t watch TV or read the papers, though, especially CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, or any of the dozens of leftist commentators and pundits and politicians quoted extensively here over the last week.

And if someone regurgitated all that, crr6 would disappear, only to return tomorrow with the same talking points.

THEY ALWAYS DO THIS. Because there’s no longer a social penalty for rank dishonesty. Your reputation as a crass liar doesn’t really have any consequences, because liberals lie about everything, it’s just expected of you.

Merovign on January 17, 2011 at 3:17 PM

MSM=confirmation bias + urban mythologies + input from lefty bloggers + megaphone

r keller on January 17, 2011 at 3:17 PM

The Times’s day-one coverage in some of its Sunday print editions included a strong focus on the political climate in Arizona and the nation….So why does a story get framed this way?…After all, a politician was shot in the head while meeting with constituents.

If they are going to use that kind of logic then since the attack occurred in front of the Safeway and only 3 of the 20 victims were political then the immediate association should have been that it was all about food. The story should have been in the food section of the newspaper with the recipes.

scrubjay on January 17, 2011 at 3:19 PM

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM

One might also ask who was responsible for the unprecedented number of death threats against Bush. my guess would be they didn’t come from the right.

jeanie on January 17, 2011 at 3:20 PM

What’s your point? They say they’re responsible indirectly

Where’s that?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Statement you quoted from the NYT (my emphasis):

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members.

The implication is that Republicans and the Tea Party may not have been directly responsible, but they might be indirectly responsible. There is no reason otherwise for “directly” to be in that sentence.

And note “facile” and “mistaken” – very weak phrasing. It is em>morally wrong to imply that innocent parties are complicit in murder – but the NYT makes it sound like their reporters having done so was no worse, morally speaking, than getting an answer wrong on a test.

Those of you who said early on that the MSM and the left would eventually try pretend they never tried to blame this on the right were entirely correct.

Missy on January 17, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Ok, so what else has been responsible for the massive number of death threats against President Obama, and the voluminous incidents of violence against members of Congress prior to 2010 midterms?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Please list “the voluminous acts of violence against members of Congress prior to 2010 midterms.”

All Presidents receive death threats. It would be interesting to see if you could substantiate that Obama received more of them than say, GWB in the equivalent period of time.

Missy on January 17, 2011 at 3:25 PM

One might also ask who was responsible for the unprecedented number of death threats against Bush.
jeanie on January 17, 2011 at 3:20 PM

I’d say the apocalyptic, extreme rhetoric from the far left was largely responsible for that. But note that both the rhetoric and the threats have been much, much worse against Obama.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Could you define the “media” and then “backpedaling?” Because I think, with very few exceptions, the media was careful not to blame Republicans for the shooting. Granted, if you include “bloggers” in the media, I suppose that changes things. But in general, I there’s been a lot of talk from the right about the media “blaming Republicans” for the shooting, and scant evidence of that actually occurring.

Well, I suppose if you don’t count every media channel, paper and blog that spouted on about “hot rhetoric” then sublty implied that the only people ever to have used “hot rhetoric” were Republicans, the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and anyone who has ever voted Republican or had a conservative thought then you may have a point.

Exactly who did you think they were talking about? Precisely why, minutes after the shooting was their any reason to imply the right or “rhetoric” had anything to do with it? Were the facts in? They didn’t even know who the shooter was … they immediately assumed it was someone from the right and that “hot rhetoric”, more than likely Sarah Palin’s “hot rhetoric”, was the sole cause and therefore no need to wait for the facts.

What’s your point? They say they’re responsible indirectly
Where’s that?

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:03 PM

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members.
Please explain the need for the word “directly” in the above sentence if not to imply indirect responsibility.

Does this sentence mean the same thing?

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act to Republicans or Tea Party members.

This happens everytime there’s a shooting or some nutjob goes on a rampage. 99 times out of a hundred it’s some leftist nutjob or lunatic yet the media immediately begins with “Did the Tea Party’s violent rhetoric cause this tragedy?” “Is Rush Limbaugh responsible for this act of violence?” Is this the final straw that can take Talk Radio down?” “Will Fox News finally admit they’re stoking hatred and violence?”

darwin on January 17, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Please list “the voluminous acts of violence against members of Congress prior to 2010 midterms.”

You can start here.

All Presidents receive death threats. It would be interesting to see if you could substantiate that Obama received more of them than say, GWB in the equivalent period of time.

Missy on January 17, 2011 at 3:25 PM

See the link in my 3:29 post.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:34 PM

It is disgusting that the government and the main stream media are forces of evil in our once great country.

GaltBlvnAtty on January 17, 2011 at 3:34 PM

that both the rhetoric and the threats have been much, much worse against Obama.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:29 PM

You’d be wrong. Go back and look.(oh, and while we’re on the subject don’t be throwing that old saw about my linking or something as I don’t plan to do it for you whether or not you approve))

jeanie on January 17, 2011 at 3:34 PM

You’d be wrong. Go back and look.

jeanie on January 17, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Hm? From the link:

Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President’s Secret Service.

crr6 on January 17, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3