The Emperor's New Hump
The NYT has now admitted spiking the humpback story.
This, apparently from NYT apologist Daniel Okrent, as quoted in the linked article:
President Bush and the Jacket Bulge
Online discussion of the famous bulge on President Bush’s back at the first presidential debate hasn’t stopped. One reporter (Dave Lindorff of Salon.com) asserted that the Times had a story in the works about a NASA scientist who had done a careful study of the graphic evidence, but it was spiked by the paper’s top editors sometime during the week before the election. Many readers have asked me for an explanation.
I checked into Lindorff’s assertion, and he’s right. The story’s life at the Times began with a tip from the NASA scientist, Robert Nelson, to reporter Bill Broad. Soon his colleagues on the science desk, John Schwartz and Andrew Revkin, took on the bulk of the reporting. Science editor Laura Chang presented the story at the daily news meeting but, like many other stories, it did not make the cut.
You rat bastards. You handed another election to the dauphin dolt, through little more than cowardice. I am ashamed to think that you are what passes for a liberal newspaper these days, you Bert Lahr, you.
Read the article, and weep for what might have been. Again.
BTW, I called this one on different circumstantial evidence back in October here.
This, apparently from NYT apologist Daniel Okrent, as quoted in the linked article:
President Bush and the Jacket Bulge
Online discussion of the famous bulge on President Bush’s back at the first presidential debate hasn’t stopped. One reporter (Dave Lindorff of Salon.com) asserted that the Times had a story in the works about a NASA scientist who had done a careful study of the graphic evidence, but it was spiked by the paper’s top editors sometime during the week before the election. Many readers have asked me for an explanation.
I checked into Lindorff’s assertion, and he’s right. The story’s life at the Times began with a tip from the NASA scientist, Robert Nelson, to reporter Bill Broad. Soon his colleagues on the science desk, John Schwartz and Andrew Revkin, took on the bulk of the reporting. Science editor Laura Chang presented the story at the daily news meeting but, like many other stories, it did not make the cut.
You rat bastards. You handed another election to the dauphin dolt, through little more than cowardice. I am ashamed to think that you are what passes for a liberal newspaper these days, you Bert Lahr, you.
Read the article, and weep for what might have been. Again.
BTW, I called this one on different circumstantial evidence back in October here.
posted by bluememe at 2/04/2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home