There is an update on the ongoing saga of the New York Times using an outspoken critic of Guantanamo to help write an article regarding prisoners held there. Andy Worthington, the writer, defends himself here.
My last post for background here.
It seems Mr. Worthington does not see his profound activism regarding Guantanamo as "outspoken." Writing a book about it called "The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison," doesn't promote a distinct outspoken point of view? Please.
The Daily Kos defends Worthington in the idea that it is so mainstream to believe the way Worthington does about Guantanamo, that is silly to expect the New York Times to have to point out Worthington's bias.
This is the thing. There is no argument that Worthington has a right to his point of view. He may even have points that many of us should consider, but all that is lost in the fact that you can't publish something as an objective piece of reporting when it is clearly not. The New York Times could have avoided the whole thing by simply pointing out Worthington's interest and activism in this story. Let the reader decide if it is objective or biased.
Let's not pretend that The New York Times hasn't done this kind of thing forever. But with the internet allowing anyone to background check, the New York Times finds itself having to actually be fair or be caught not being fair. It's as simple as that.
This isn't about Worthington's story. This isn't about Guantánamo. This is about honesty with the reader. It's long past time the New York Times learned this valuable lesson.
—Kathleen McKinley is a blogger whose posts appear at Rightwing Sparkle.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's amazing what the press does today.
February 9, 2008 - 16:13 ET by pbthinkerIf someone, anyone, denies that man is responsible for global warming outfits, like the NY Times, do endless internet searches trying to find the Exxon/Mobil connection, somewhere, anywhere, to put out as a disclaimer. Why don't the same rules apply here? It's quite simple, if you agree with the premise, why bother checking someones credibility, if not, assume the worst and keep checking until you find something.
And they wonder why their readership is down.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
My old Journalism
February 9, 2008 - 16:37 ET by BDMy old Journalism professors would never have allowed me to put the term "Illegal" in a headline. Its use in his work obviously places him on the side of a partisan in the issue.
Surprising that the NYT did not catch that upfront....
It's quite simple, really
February 9, 2008 - 16:41 ET by c5thenThe "people" held at Guantanamo Bay are all illegal combantants per the Geneva Conventions. As illegal combatants caught on the field of battle by a uniformed armed forces, they could have been summarily executed on the spot. Instead, they have been incarcirated and treated as legal uniformed combatants in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. This is much more humane and "fair" than the US had to be.
The NY Times and the far left liberals who control it's editorial direction, can not stand that the US might be getting valuable information out of these illegal combatants. The NY Times will use whatever means they have at their disposal to disseminate their ideology to any masses stupid enough to pay for their propaganda. If this means masquerading an opinion piece as actual journalism, well that is a minor issue for the NY Times. We're talking about the paper who hired and promoted Jayson Blair for publishing fiction as news stories.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
The "people" held at
February 9, 2008 - 17:46 ET by drillanwrThe "people" held at Guantanamo Bay are all illegal combantants per the Geneva Conventions. As illegal combatants caught on the field of battle by a uniformed armed forces, they could have been summarily executed on the spot.
Yeah, now THAT was a PLAN!
See what happens when you don't go "by the book" on the battlefield?
When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks
774
February 9, 2008 - 17:13 ET by Lame CherryMs. McKinley, you really need to add a little background for comrade Worthington as your articles would benefit from the comedy.
Andy Worthington's bio does not exist on Wikipedia, home to planted stories, that is why in searching for scraps of information I found on him I started laughing as his planted bio pieces called him "a historian".
Real historians would wince in displeasure at this but it forms a distinct pattern how this huckster and all liberals operate.
You might have added that his comrade in typing at the Times is none other than Carlotta Gall, a Brit who got her start at that very distinguished paper THE MOSCOW TIMES. You know the MT and all Russian newspapers who feature stories on crazy things like aquarian children, the US causing tsunami's to kill people and the ever present UFO's.
Gall it should be noted cut her teeth on Chechnya and wrote a book about it making cash as well as "exposing" a person beat to death in US captivity.
The problem with Gall is she bit on Chechnya as being "real". Russian ex patriots exposed Chechnya not a war at all about terrorism, but a war Putin wagged the dog on to hide he was really behind the Islamocommunist movement attacking America.
Our fellow warrior Putin exploited and ran the whole operation KGB or FSB style including the attacks on Russian children.
Back to "historian Andy".
Andy never quite figures out the 774 have this after their name.
774 who cheered when 3000 Amerians were pulverized on 9 11.
774 who cheer every time a Judean is blown apart in the Israeli state.
774 who smiled when Daniel Pearl got his head lopped off in Pakistan.
774 who refer to bin Laden as the shiek and the future of Islam.
774 who chant America is the Great Satan.
Those are just a few things historian Andy does not deal with in his paid for zeal.
I will not waste my time picking apart the Gitmo Files for Profit and Propaganda, but I will make these comments:
Comment 1: Gitmo Files if one searches back in the money can link to George Soros.
Comment 2: Gitmo Files evidence has more than one "expert" who will be linked to terror groups.
Comment 3: Gitmo Files has "not my baby" experts who will swear the hijackers on 9 11 were in the wrong place at the wrong time just like feature boy Abdul Razzak.
Andy Worthington 'historian', they called them a different name in the Soviet Union when they wrote things like Russians invented the automobile, the telephone and computer..........I believe back then it was KGB agent responsible for propaganda.
Do your research Ms. McKinley. There is a vast fruit to be picked here if Soros gamed Kos is defending him......it might even bring down Kos and expose his money trail.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Front page news vs news analysis
February 9, 2008 - 17:15 ET by Gary HallKathleen. "There is no argument that Worthington has a right to his point of view." ??
Sure. We all expect to see points of views in the opinion pages of our newspapers. At a minimum, in addition to the proper disclosures, this story should have been labled as "news analysis."
"When the debate is lost,
February 9, 2008 - 18:03 ET by rbosque"When the debate
is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." – Socrates