On the 19th, the Times had published a front-page story on the CIA's destruction of interrogation tapes made of Islamofascist detainees, but the subhead made it seem as if the White House was straight out lying about their knowledge of the situation. The original subhead screamed "White House Role Was Wider Than It Said," but what was it the White House "said" about the issue, anyway?
Turns out, not a thing. Literally... not a single thing!
As Politico.com reports:
On Wednesday, White House press secretary Dana Perino said in a statement that the Times subheadline... was inaccurate.
“The New York Times’ inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling, and we are formally requesting that NYT correct the subheadline of this story,” Perino said.
The White House has continued not to comment on what the representative dubbed “misleading press reports.”
And Fox News reports that Perino said:
"Well, it says, 'The White House role was wider than it said,' implying that I had either changed my story, or I or somebody else at the White House had misled the public. And that is not true," Perino said during Wednesday's press briefing.
"The New York Times today implies that the White House has been misleading in publicly acknowledging or discussing details related to the CIA's decision to destroy interrogation tapes," Perino said.
But she said that couldn't be the case because the White House has been under strict orders not to comment publicly.
It seems that the White House has stayed mum on the entire issue, so it's a bit hard to construe a no comment at all into the White House "saying" anything that amounts to lying to the American people. Not that this truth deterred the NYT. Well, at least not at first.
So what does the Times say about being caught red-handed making up lies about what the White House said?
In a statement, the Times said, "The White House has not challenged the contents of our story, but it questioned the precision of the second deck of our headline. ... While Bush administration officials have discussed the White House role in the tapes episode (asserting, for example, that Harriet Miers opposed the destruction of the tapes) 'the White House' has not officially said anything on the subject. We have made the appropriate correction online, and will print a correction."
Dean Baquet, the Times' Washington D.C. bureau chief, told Politico that while the deck -- the subheadline -- went a "little farther than the story," the facts in the piece are accurate.
Here we go again with the line that the story is "fake but accurate," eh?
No, what we have here is just another boring case of agenda journalism on full display. Neither the NYT nor the rest of the leftist MSMers out there really care a whit about "accuracy." They want to further their ideological viewpoint and that is the end of their concerns. If they have to manufacture exploding gas tanks to show that trucks are "dangerous," if they have to wave faked documents madly above their heads to "prove" that Bush is a draft dodger, if they have to give us "fake but accurate" stories to promulgate their desired political outcomes... well, that's just fine with them.
Well, here is a case where they got caught and were forced to issue a correction. That's one for the good guys... but hundreds of thousands for the MSM uninterested in the truth.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Nice euphemism
December 20, 2007 - 07:46 ET by motherbeltwent a "little farther than the story,"
I guess that's the new euphemism for "wasn't true."
That's a typical left-wing tactic. Print something inflammatory, and if someone really complains about it, change it, making it plain the problem was a technical one (the precision of the second deck...) If not, you let it stand. (Emphasis added)
The NYT doesn't care. Everyone saw the original; the thought was planted. Few will see the correction.
Mission accomplished.
Defending Fascism
December 20, 2007 - 08:01 ET by allanfWhen the New York Times defends facism, it encourages people such as Judge Henry Kennedy, (with visions of a Times Editorial calling him courageous) to try to confront the Administration. I remained mystified as to why these anit-Administration cases are so randomly assigned to this man.
As for me, I feel McCain-Feingold's restrictions on political speech are a greater threat to the Republic than the waterboarding of terrorists. I am more concerned about the FCC enacting a "fairness doctrine" to shut down speech the Democrats do not approve of.
went a "little farther than
December 20, 2007 - 08:59 ET by Senior Chiefwent a "little farther than the story,"
Which means, NYT lied. Leftoids are good in exageration, calling it "progressive thinking". Progressive my a**. So what else NYT lied about beside this story...
Dana you're the man, I mean, woman to beat this lefties along with NBers and Rush.
i'd love to "go a little
December 20, 2007 - 14:08 ET by TruthMongeri'd love to "go a little farther" than the gun laws allow with these MSM bastards myself...
Baquet
December 20, 2007 - 10:03 ET by Tom BlumerI do believe this is the same Dean Baquet who got fired from the LA Times for defying demanded budget cuts.
Looks like NYT is the home of LAT refugees. Solomon Moore, last seen misreporting civilian casualties in Ramadi, is also at the NYT now.
From one sinking ship to another....
Just to leave a post that
December 20, 2007 - 08:22 ET by ArchConservativeJust to leave a post that doesn't have anything to do with the serious content of the article, but is it just me or is this woman SMOKIN' HOT?!
You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.
There's no arguing the
December 20, 2007 - 10:10 ET by NewsbusterbrownThere's no arguing the point, AC. She justs smolders, especially when she verbally beats up one of the White House press corp.
Saying you support the troops
December 20, 2007 - 13:53 ET by kirch66Saying you support the troops but not their mission is like saying you support the Dallas Cowboys but not the particular game they are playing in. It totally dismisses the reason they are in the profession they are in to begin with. "I really love the football players, but I hate the game of football, so I will protest the games!" Boy that really makes sense. If you support the troops then in what way do you support them? Maybe a better analogy would be, "I support policemen but I don't support the fact that they arrest criminals." The asinine logic of liberals is stupefying.
"The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." - Oriana Fallaci
Two sources
December 20, 2007 - 08:34 ET by ThisnThatThe NYT is supposed to always get two sources to verify a story. Wonder how many dozens of NYT "sources" signed up to support their lie?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
If any one of the leftist
December 20, 2007 - 08:39 ET by bretzysdudeIf any one of the leftist trolls comes over and defends this asinine act of journalism, I'm going to say that the world has officially gone to pot and go to bed; not even show up for work. What would be the point?
Trolls will, just watch.
December 20, 2007 - 09:03 ET by Senior ChiefTrolls will, just watch. Olberdot, Chrissy and Clinton News Network will follow through. Remember, they "control" the media. Glad that NB and Rush & Hannity are there.
One for the good guys
December 20, 2007 - 08:46 ET by sentforth5Well, Warner, I suppose that's true, but I can't help feel it is one for the good guys; twenty for the bad guys on a daily basis. For those into prophecy, I would say the 5th trump has sounded and I'm afraid that the level of evil on the earth will no longer be equal with the level of good...from now on those of us who seek truth will have to search with a little more umph; we'll have to move things around- shift things- actually search out the truth. satan is in charge of the etherwaves, so we have to poke and prod to get actual facts.Praise and thank God for NB, Rush, Boortz, Savage,et al.......this is only going to get worse, children. But don't worry...I read the Book a bunch of times and satan and his minions are pretty sly... yeah, pretty scrappy, BUT WE WIN!
I Wonder...
December 20, 2007 - 08:54 ET by Sua Spontewill this be reported in the MSM:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=FLDAY&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Probably not, since there was no evidence of waterboarding and the torture was committed by islamic/muslim TERRORISTS
More news we'll never see on TV
December 20, 2007 - 10:08 ET by pbanks7Thanks! Real torture from the "Religion of Peace."
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Seen this time and again (pardon the pun)
December 20, 2007 - 09:15 ET by c5thenIt's usually the headline or sub-headline where the agenda can raelly bee seen. Some of the headlines that I've read of the last couple of years actually have almost nothing to do with the story itself. Many give the exact opposite interpretation or conclusion than the body of the story gives, just like the one above.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
That's what they do,
December 20, 2007 - 09:24 ET by motherbeltThat's what they do, c5...just plant the seed....it's as if they are determined to get their little propaganda point in there somewhere...if they get caught (and generally they don't) they fix it; if not, they chalk one up for their side.
That's right. The damage
December 20, 2007 - 09:55 ET by JerryThat's right. The damage has already been done. The liberal blogosphere have already grabbed it and incorporated it into their propaganda arsenal under the heading of "More Bush Lies". It will continue to fuel their unfounded rage against all things conservative, as they repeat it over and over.
It's like breaking wind. The NYT breaks wind, and even if they have to come back later and say "Oops", it's too late. All people will remember is the stink.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
WTH, I think the NYT was
December 20, 2007 - 10:19 ET by LeonWTH,
I think the NYT was scared if they didn't stop messing around with the White House, the next time it might not be their dog that gets shot.
As for the tapes situation, I'm not so certain the White House has remained mum.
According to Ed Henry, the White House has been privately telling reporters that it urged the CIA to keep the tapes:
In fact, right after the story first broke, people within the administration did say privately that, in fact, Harriet Miers had told the CIA not to destroy the tapes, and that that suggested that the White House, in fact, was saying, Don’t destroy. Now, this New York Times story is saying four people in the president’s or vice president’s inner circle actually talked to the CIA about it. So that does suggest a wider role.
As far as I'm concerned this is all ridiculous. Of course the White House knew what was going on. I'd be more scared if they didn't than if they did. In fact, their emphatic refusal to comment publicly is more damning than anything they could have done. Why the secrets? Tell us what's up.
Here's another interesting take on the situation.
Off the record leaks does
December 20, 2007 - 11:34 ET by Warner Todd HustonOff the record leaks does not equate to "The White House says."
Sorry, Leon, but the NYT just plain lied.
There is one speculation as
December 20, 2007 - 10:29 ET by Jack BauerThere is one speculation as to why the CIA interrogation tapes where destroyed that no one has mentioned.
It runs in tangent with the Democrats who were fully briefed on the CIA interrogations, and who worried they weren't harsh enough.
Huh -- how come eyes don't pop at that thought? When a democrat wonders whether something isn't "harsh" enough, it gets my suspicions salivating.
So... it is quite possible the tapes were destroyed because they showed just how Politically Correct the CIA has become since Clinton flooded the agency with polical hacks of the liberal variety..
That far from being "harsh," the man who masterminded 9/11 was treated like Paris Hilton on a DUI, autographs and all.
And that the ordinary folks would be outraged if they saw how gently these monsters were treated for weeks.
Just a thought.
And besides.....
December 20, 2007 - 11:28 ET by neighb....who really cares what the NYT says anyway???
The 18 people who still subscribe to this dinosaur hate Bush anyway, and a simple retraction/correction won't change their minds.
Trust me...the guys in the Boardroom at the NYT are in a panic about how their rag's downward spiral in profits gains momentum with each passing quarter. But as with most of the lefty nutjobs in Congress like Reid and Pelosi, they gotta bend over and grab the ankles for their extreme left, communist base.
At my house, we only use copies of the Times, thrown out by our neighbor, for lining our birdcage, cat box, and picking up their dog's "latest headlines" on our lawn.
neighb
Think Progress
December 20, 2007 - 11:36 ET by HermanoI went to the Think Progress (yeah, right) website yesterday and looked at their take on the press conference. Needless to say, there take was a bit different than reality. In general, the comments ranged from "Buck Fush" - one of the more enlightened comments - to "Perino countered that she is “not accountable" Says it all. No one in this maladministration considers them accountable. For anything." Of course her statement was, "I am not accountable for your sources."
The original posting says that Perino is not "contradictory - just evasive."
They do a great job of spin over there - well, not that great.
Bush DID NOT Lie
December 20, 2007 - 13:58 ET by mattmIsn't it funny how the Bush Lied crowd are actually the ones who lie continually, and who support known and convicted liars!!!
Lying about Bush lying has
December 20, 2007 - 14:10 ET by TruthMongerLying about Bush lying has always amused the hell out of me:)...
Libs are irony on steroids...
did you see the headline about this?
December 20, 2007 - 15:20 ET by wizardjrfrom Politico:
"NY Times changes CIA healine for WH"
So they only did it as a favor to the White House? Not because it was wrong? Another non-apology apology.
wizard... They just can't
December 20, 2007 - 15:23 ET by bigtimerwizard...
They just can't help themselves....now can they.
Pathetic.
Retraction is better than
December 20, 2007 - 23:41 ET by GregERetraction is better than nothing, but the first story gets run, gets pushed all over the media, all the good little American people sheep grab it, use it in their water-cooler conversations, and what's done is done. Most never know anything, or care anything about a retraction. They're happy with what they have to run with, and the rest matters not...............and the mainstream media understands this very well.