Quote:
Originally Posted by Phogg
If there had ever been an ounce of commitment to objectivity or integrity at the New York Times they would have spearheaded an effort to retract Walter Duranty's Pulitzer decades ago.
|
Do you frequently read the paper, or just figure that this is the only one with such issues? If so, you might want to check out the
Chicago Tribune under Robert R. McCormick, and let me know how much stronger they are spearheading efforts to deal with the ridiculous coverage of Communism (equating it with the New Deal) that used to be found in that leading American paper.
I am not aware of any other paper issuing nearly as many corrections, including in the Kindle eInk editions, as
The New York Times. And, yes, others also make mistakes. And how many of the others even have the check of an ombudsman or public editor?
As for Duranty,
The New York Times has repeatedly reported on his faults:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/us...tant-says.html
Here is the conclusion of the Pulitzer Prize organization:
Quote:
|
In its review of the 13 articles, the Board determined that Mr. Duranty's 1931 work, measured by today's standards for foreign reporting, falls seriously short. In that regard, the Board's view is similar to that of The New York Times itself and of some scholars who have examined his 1931 reports. However, the board concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case. Revoking a prize 71 years after it was awarded under different circumstances, when all principals are dead and unable to respond, would be a momentous step and therefore would have to rise to that threshold.
|
Is there an alternative news source for eInk readers that you believe is more complete and accurate?