Author Topic: Linda Rohstadt boo'd off stage for Moore comment (Read 4472 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #210 on:** July 22, 2004, 01:55:18 AM »

So the glorious NYT designing a company culture that promoted outright lying by this reporter means nothing... Roger that...

What did he title the book? Bringing down my masters house, was it? A bit presumptous but not far off wrt to the papers credibity in the near term..

Nash · « **Reply #211 on:** July 22, 2004, 02:04:50 AM »

Neat. Using the con artist's words to prop up an argument against the victim of said con.

And what did he lie about?

Touchie-feely type stories.

It was bad, no doubt. But come on...

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #212 on:** July 22, 2004, 02:09:00 AM »

So it's OK for the NYT to fabricate certain articles but not others? Who decides and when do readers know?

It was bad, it was and is terrible for the paper's reputation and fairly or unfairly it will potentially taint the reputations of everyone involved with the NYT for some time to come.

Nash · « **Reply #213 on:** July 22, 2004, 02:18:46 AM »

By that I mean that stories of greater importance than what Blair was doing received greater scrutiny and fact checking.

It wouldn't suprise me to learn that now, because of this, when someone reports on a son picking daffodils for mother's day, the paper makes sure that they are in fact daffodils and not lilies.

Y'all, some of you, look for any excuse to distrust one of the few legit sources of information. It's a great paper. It will survive your weak attempts to marginalize it. Cuz ya can't do any better. Even with the Blair debacle, ya just can't come anywhere near close to creating a cleaner paper.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #214 on:** July 22, 2004, 02:24:10 AM »

And you continue blindly trusting it. Putting a great deal of faith in a fallible human institution for a sharp eyed skeptic, arent you..

It seems to me in the context of this boy scouts story, your stance is almost if the NYT doesnt report it then it cant be true - regardless if other diverse sources tell the story.

And you try to marginalize the Blair debacle... How may stories did he fake? For how long did he do it? Heck they didnt even check to see that he was a college graduate when they hired him, maybe they should have asked for a transcript, a pretty normal thing hiring somebody out of school who claims to be a graduate. Also why did nobody at NYT take notice thar Blair wasnt submittinmg travel expenses for all his national stories? The problem is far bigger than just this Blair guy...

Nash · « **Reply #215 on:** July 22, 2004, 02:32:38 AM »

I don't blindly trust it.

Even close.

Human frailty.

They got completely duped, and I'm not talking about Blair. At least they admitted it.

But still... Duped. So no, I don't blindly trust anything.

Still, those folks have more integrity than 99 percent of people you're about to run up against, Grun. They take this stuff personally.

The NYT is about as quality of a paper as ya can get. Anywhere in the world. I'd be proud of it.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #216 on:** July 22, 2004, 02:36:58 AM »

But in this thread you almost seem to have this idea that if they dont run a story then its not true, I think thats dangerous.

Are you then saying that all the other papers are grossly dishonest? Or just papers whose editorials lean in a different direction than maybe you would prefer?

Nash · « **Reply #217 on:** July 22, 2004, 02:40:40 AM »

Huh?

not sure....

But do you know the New York Post? Or the Washington Times?

These papers only get more ridiculous the more you know about them.

I get sick of people quoting them, thinking they have "post" and "times" in the right order.

Huge, HUGE difference.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #218 on:** July 22, 2004, 02:46:41 AM »

So generally speaking, for example, in your eyes anything in the Washington Times not backed up by the Washington Post is not really credible?

To what do you attribute that? Poor reporters? Dishonest reporters? Bad editors? Dishonest editors? Bad support staff?

Montezuma · « **Reply #219 on:** July 22, 2004, 03:06:00 AM »

Bad owner.

The Washington Times is owned by Rev. Moon, of the bizarre and dangerous Mooney cult.

Moon runs the Washington Times at a big loss each year, but keeps putting money into it in an attempt to endear himself to right-wing politicians.

So no, I wouldn't trust anything with their byline.

X2Lee · « **Reply #220 on:** July 22, 2004, 07:46:26 AM »

I think Voss has more class in his little finger than someone who would boo boy scouts. Young men invited there to show the nations colors...
Such is my feeling for the democratic party.

And for all the gay people, they can do whatever they want to
behind closed doors
Its not offensive to 85% of the population till they are kissing in public.

For a gay man or woman to boo a boyscout honoring his country,
after they were invited?

It a mockery of our nation and our God.

But go on defend it some more, it sheds light on your charactor.

midnight Target · « **Reply #221 on:** July 22, 2004, 07:51:51 AM »

You guys are deaf dumb and blind... Who is defending it?

ROFL

X2Lee · « **Reply #222 on:** July 22, 2004, 08:08:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
You guys are deaf dumb and blind... Who is defending it?

ROFL

Those who will vote for Democrats. Who else?

scott123 · « **Reply #223 on:** July 22, 2004, 08:48:53 AM »

Question everything,or question nothing.

If this is the best you can do,God help America,God help us all.