It's a first. The New York Times is admitting that one of their headlines slamming the Bush White House was an outright lie. Such a lie that they had to change it when the White House complained. Of course, the original subhead had trumpeted how White House spokesman Dana Perino lied to the American people, but when Perino pointed out that she never even said what the Times claimed, they had to face the truth and change the original. This is the sort of junk "reporting" you get when you have an agenda to push... truth be damned.
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.”
"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.