On October 13, The New York Times gravely informed us that the economy was causing stress for travelers. Not just the economy in general, but specifically that the "crisis on Wall Street was the No. 1 cause of anxiety" for travelers. And, they had a survey to prove it, too. Or so NYT writer Paul Burnham Finney claimed. But, on October 21 the Times was forced to issue a little correction to Finney's tall tale. You see, it turns out writer Finney outright lied about some of his claims and quotes.
In fact, it turns out that freelancer Finney made up quite a few "facts" for his story. Finney claimed the survey he was citing proved that travelers saw the Wall Street crisis as the "no. 1" worry and claimed that the survey participants felt vulnerable "in the office and on a business trip." However, the survey did not ask such questions of participants, so Finney could not have gleaned any such thing from it. Finney also quoted Nancy Molitor, a psychologist in Wilmette, Ill., as saying that she had "never seen such anxiety" from among her "banking and business patients." But, the paper discovered that Dr. Molitor never made such a statement to Finney.
In other words, it appears that Paul Burnham Finney simply made up these "facts" to fit the theme he wanted to push in his story. Real anxiety wasn't enough for Finney. Instead, Finney massaged the story to fit the day's headlines about Wall Street in order to make his story more sensational.
Here is the Times' correction:
An article in the Itineraries pages last Tuesday reported about the increasing stress on business travelers, and cited the findings of “Stress in America,” an annual survey of the American Psychological Association. That survey found that economic factors were the leading causes of stress levels in 2008, but it did not say, as the article did, that “the crisis on Wall Street was the No. 1 cause of anxiety,” nor did participants in the survey say they felt most vulnerable to stress “in the office and on a business trip.”
The survey included data from Sept. 19 to Sept. 23, 2008, a period of volatility on Wall Street, but none of the questions in the association’s survey referred to Wall Street or any economic crises. Participants were not asked how business travel affected their stress levels or where they felt most vulnerable to stress. The author of the article distorted the survey’s findings to fit his theme, contrary to The Times’s standards of integrity.
The article also quoted incorrectly from a comment by Nancy Molitor, a psychologist in Wilmette, Ill., who told the author that, “In my 20 years of practice I’ve never seen such anxiety among my patients,” not “among my banking and business patients.” While Dr. Molitor does have patients in banking and business, she did not single them out as being more anxious than her other patients.
Now, On-line bios notes that Finney seems to be a freelancer, not a permanent member of The New York Times.
Paul Burnham Finney is a New York-based business and travel writer who specializes in the transportation industry. He has been a columnist for the New York Times and Travel & Leisure and a contributor to Conde Nast Traveler, Frequent Flyer, the Robb Report, Porthole, and other national publications.
My guess is, Mr. Finney might find it a tad more difficult to get work from here on out... or at least he should.
(H/T Gawker.com)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Are friends of the NYT safe?
October 22, 2008 - 01:32 ET by wdhorningDear NYT,
you had friends who died in the Twin Towers, no doubt.
Are you that sure Obama is not a radical Islamic "terrorist?" Are you sure your friends are safe if Obama is president?
At the very least, Obama has clearly lied about ever being a Muslim, which makes you wonder why he did that. Even the NYT ran the story, which it deleted, which stated how Obama thought the Muslim call to prayer was the most beautiful sound on earth. Many people change religions, but Obama cannot admit he changed his? Why? And if he did so as a child, Muslim laws do not call for any harm to him, so he could admit it freely.
There are even several pictures of him in Islamic dress at various times in his adult life. What is going on there?
Obama was mentored in Islam in Indonesia, per school records, as Barry Soetoro. He has very recently thrown his support behind his cousin in Kenya, an Islamic radical, who commits acts of terror, such as burning Christians alive in a church. Has Obama had private talks with Jesse Jackson, and Jesse Jackson slipped when he said "Israel is no longer #1 priority?" Does this mean Obama will support Islamic terrorists as a president who operates in a laissez-faire mode?
Did he "cozy up" to Bill Ayers becaue they both were "two of a kind?
Will the NYT have the blood of innocent people on its hands if Obama wins and terrorists have more liberty? (OK, so you blame Bush for killing innocents, which is not true, but even if it were, does that justify you doing the same by failed scrutiny of Obama, should Obama have a "secret plan"?)
Now in all fairness to Obama, his past history with Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, Raines, Rezko, his Kenyan terrorist cousin, Islamic school as a kid (no choice in the matter), ACORN, and about a dozen other dubious associations in his history, could just be "bad luck". But with this many associations, could it be more along the lines of Obama's "taste" in "friends" than just "bad luck" or "bone headed" choices, as Obama put it?
And what about Obama saying on ABC recently "McCain never questioned me about my Muslim faith .... uh, (10 seconds later), Christian faith" ?
Does Biden really think Obama is a terrorist sympathizer and it is not so much that as a new president he will be tested, but rather that because he will be so sympathetic to terrorists they will now have a "free hand" and Biden is making excuses in advance of that time, along with Albright and a few others? Or maybe they are all making excuses so if he is "tested" no one will begin to think he is really sympathetic to terrorists, but only just a "new" president, just as Bush was, who certainly was not sympathetic to terrorists, and no one will be the wiser about Obama?
I owe Obama my deepest apologies if I am wrong. And in fact I am really only asking questions, anyway. But what will the NYT owe America, and innocent blood, if it is wrong?
This goes for the rest of the MSM.
Media's Role in Revolution
October 22, 2008 - 01:46 ET by ljAs a student of history, I used to always think that government overthrow or oppressive regimes rose to power solely through the uneducated minds of a mobocracy. And while that may still be somewhat true, it wasn't until this election that I realized just what role the media plays in all of this.
While I know it may already be obvious to others, I never realized the power of such propaganda. And let's face it, that's all this is. They must have been waiting for the right time or year to show their true colors. They are all gaining courage in the battle for the mind-shaping of the mobs.
Journalism is truly dead. And if Obama is elected, the "press" isn't the only thing that will lose the word "free."
Unfortunately, I wouldn't
October 22, 2008 - 02:31 ET by Warner Todd HustonUnfortunately, I wouldn't rule out the "uneducated minds of a mobocracy," here. Our schools are universally useless, teach nothing, fail miserably... and do so on purpose in order to create just that uneducated citizenry you were talking about.
People voting for Obama are nit stupid people. They are ignorant. And they are ignorant by the design of our schools.
Please read.....Important, and pass it on
October 22, 2008 - 06:07 ET by sjanus11Dear Friends:
My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois. I’m 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don’t consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don’t believe there are ‘two Americas’ but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they’ll just work to get there and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.
The purpose of this message is that I’m concerned about the future of this great nation. I’m worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called ‘news’, thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can’t understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don’t want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.
We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It’s a privilege to do so. I’ve never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I’ll wager that most of us don’t even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I’ve hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that’s what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
I’m concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don’t get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can’t explain, and calling it ‘change’.
‘Change what?’, I ask.
‘Well, we’re going to change America’, they say.
‘In what way?’, I query.
‘We want someone new and fresh in the White House’, they exclaim.
‘So, someone who’s not a politician?’, I say.
‘Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we’re voting for Obama’, they state.
‘So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news, and win his party’s nomination for the White House that system’s all wrong?’
‘No, no, that part of the system’s okay we just need a lot of change.’
And so it goes. ‘Change we can believe in.’
Quite frankly, I don’t believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I’ve been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they’re voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they’re voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why only that he’s going to change a lot of stuff ‘Change, change, change.’ I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth other than the fact that he claims he’s going to implement a lot of change.
We’ve all seen the emails about Obama’s genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let’s ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, ‘What qualifies this man to be my president? That he’s a brilliant orator and talks about change?’
CHANGE WHAT?
Friends, I’ll be forthright with you I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don’t have a clue what they’re doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I’ve spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected.
Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven’t read his wife’s thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who’s lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama’s constant harping about change is that we’re in for a lot of new taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I’ve looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I’ve made my choice.
Here’s a question - ‘Where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You’ve had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6, 000 meals, give or take.’
John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp. When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that’s a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq. Barack Obama is fond of saying ‘We honor John McCain’s service…BUT…’, which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, ‘Let’s forget this man’s sacrifice for his country, and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change.’
I don’t agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what’s right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn’t simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there’s a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change, can’t hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate in 1982.
Perhaps Obama’s supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don’t care about McCain’s service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe ‘likeability’ is a higher priority for them than ‘trust’. Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, ‘Enough.’ It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they’re voting for, and why.
There’s a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family’s interests before any foreign country.
I want a President who’s qualified to lead.
I want my country back, and I’m voting for John McCain.
Phone: 760.434.1395
E-mail:ronald.hess@alumni.purdue.edu
I AM JUST SICK AND TIRED OF BEING SICK AND TIRED..............THIS COUNTRY IS HEADING DOWN CRAPPER...........AND JUST REMEMBER WHEN IT"S TIME FOR BLAME.....YOU REMEMBER WHO!!!
»→ Dammit Janus
October 22, 2008 - 06:09 ET by Cool ArrowI know storage is cheap, but once was sufficient.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
I agree with Cool
October 22, 2008 - 07:06 ET by motherbeltI agree with Cool Arrow....c/p 'ing the same off-topic thing in 3 posts is spamming.
Spam
October 22, 2008 - 07:21 ET by FoolicanDon't make a fuss, dear. I'll have your spam, I like it! I'm having spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam--
Oops, sorry. I got carried away there.
Just one minor correction
October 22, 2008 - 08:44 ET by Mary Louise TurnerYour comment is indeed very important, but I must correct you on one thing: John McCain was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982, and to the Senate in 1986.
Must be something at the
October 22, 2008 - 07:01 ET by RMRMust be something at the NYT that encourages this culture of deception, don't you think Todd?
As far as Mr Finney not getting work, remember, he is a lib. So I will see your tad, and raise you a Huiffington Post, 2 Times, and 5 Newsweeks.
Exactly!
October 22, 2008 - 07:10 ET by Warner Todd HustonExactly!
** ACORN NEWS **
October 22, 2008 - 08:26 ET by MrShyJUST IN: The New York Times is now..... finally.... reporting on an internal investigation going on at ACORN!!
More to come, I'm sure...
Btw, Cool Arrow pointed out how Plugs Biden bears a striking resemblance to....
http://mr-shy.com/bo...
:)
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
Travel
October 22, 2008 - 08:23 ET by easygoerThe Travel section is the only part of the Times worth reading. Now that is apparently infected as well.
Warner...A Democrat-Housing Timeline. Everybody Check This Out
October 22, 2008 - 08:32 ET by TheSter1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.
Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.
How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market? Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.
1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.
1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopoies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.
1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.
1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.
1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Developement, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.
With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often 'no doc', 'no income', requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as musch as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.
Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.
1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. 'We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks,' Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.
2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the 'special status'. Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward and punish. 'We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets' Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.
2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.
2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called 'the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago'. Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.
2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: 'We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk'. Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, 'If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole'. Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of trying to 'cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership' The bill went nowhere.
2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market fell in '07, subprime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.
2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush urged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a 'Republican' disaster. A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion!!
If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen to your lawmakers own words. They are condeming!
http://www.youtube.c...
http://www.youtube.c...
http://www.youtube.c...
Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of Fannie/ Freddie's slush funds. They are currently under indictment or investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal counsel, defending their activities for several years.
Ster.
Thank you for posting
October 22, 2008 - 09:13 ET by play21cwThank you for posting that.
I will be sending that to a bunch of my liberal 'friends' who think they know it all.