NYT acknowledges errors in McFarland story

Discussion in 'On The Field' started by hopefulhorn, Jan 18, 2009.

  1. longtex

    longtex Guest


     
  2. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    I didn't see much of anything admitting the story was "wrong", just that they couldn't confirm some elements of it. No discussion of the glaring holes int he story other than the paper, and what amounted to an affirmation of the mother's story with ONCE AGAIN no attempt to get more details or give an alternative version of what happened.

    Looks to me like the paper believes the story, they just don't think they got enough backing.
     
  3. stanhin

    stanhin 5,000+ Posts


     
  4. Bob in Houston

    Bob in Houston 2,500+ Posts


     
  5. stanhin

    stanhin 5,000+ Posts


     
  6. hopefulhorn

    hopefulhorn 25+ Posts

    I am amazed at the uproar this post generated.

    Bob makes some salient points, largely about the realities of journalism and the influence of culture. To the NYT, this was a fluff piece compared to what they usually write about. As Bob suggests, I strongly suspect they will not soon tread again in such unfamiliar waters.

    Suggestions of bias against the program on the part of the Times are absurd as the team generally (and Colt specifically) received very positive coverage before this article appeared. On that note, it seems clear that a lot of you don't agree with the politics of the paper's editorial board and are using this issue to vent those feelings.

    The Times' acknowledgement was a bit tepid for my taste. Still, at least they made one. For comparison's sake, I have been unable to find an ombudsman, public editor or any other manner of acknowledging errors in reporting by Fox News despite the presence of many such errors. I have e-mailed them asking about this and have yet to receive a reply. Perhaps some of you more familiar with Fox News than I can enlighten me as to how they hold themselves accountable in a manner similar to the Times, Washington Post or others.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. longtex

    longtex Guest

    In reply to:


     
  8. stanhin

    stanhin 5,000+ Posts

    In reply to:


     
  9. Dogbert

    Dogbert 500+ Posts

    I don't think the Times has any axe to grind against the Horns, but Thayer might. His article has painted some fans as corrupt and racist and Mack as an arrogant coach with no concerns for a player's family. Does this sound like Mack? Thayer also did this at a time when he knew Mack could not respond. That's a ****** thing to do and the NYT allowed it to happen.

    The Times is an excellent newspaper that should be held to a high standard. They failed in this article. Unfortunately, they have printed many articles by Thayer (many about OU) and in my opinion the McFarland article was "spiced up" to draw attention which causes me to question Thayer's motives.
     
  10. pulque

    pulque 1,000+ Posts


     
  11. huisache

    huisache 2,500+ Posts

    One thing that is being missed in all of this is that the NYT has not apologized in any fashion. You have a column by the public editor pointing out how a story was handled sloppily by one of their stringers.

    The Public Editor is a journalist who is hired but not controlled by the Times. HIs job is for a year and then he moves on. During that year he can write on anything about the paper and its coverage that he wants to and is not subject to editing.

    That way they cannot be intimidated by the paper's editorial board or owners.

    The public editor's position was created several years ago and has been the source of a lot of the negative criticism of the paper because everybody they have hired has hammered them on various issues--the Duke case being a good example.

    Has anyone noticed that nobody among the haters has gone to the trouble of pointing out a better paper in the US?
     
  12. coolhorn

    coolhorn 2,500+ Posts

    Better paper? Stop by the donut shop in the morning and pick up the "Coffee News"...you'll be impressed. [​IMG]
     
  13. stanhin

    stanhin 5,000+ Posts

    Thanks for the information, huisache.
     
  14. mackfan1

    mackfan1 1,000+ Posts


     
  15. Bob in Houston

    Bob in Houston 2,500+ Posts


     
  16. Shark4

    Shark4 2,500+ Posts


     
  17. Hu_Fan

    Hu_Fan Guest

    I like Austin's "Chronicle." It's much more relevant. [​IMG]
     
  18. WorsterMan

    WorsterMan SEC here we come!!

    In reply to:

    "The Wall Street Journal beats the NYT in every way, and it's not close"

    I second that.
     
  19. Hes not here

    Hes not here 100+ Posts

    Face it, journalists are not held to an ethical standard that some of you guys wish to believe. They are given a platform and have no recourse for writing biased, misleading, or outright inaccurate information. The NY Times is no different than any other media outlet in this country; that is it exists to make money. They exist within a boundary that fits into an agenda, and this journalistic integrity that some falsely believe in is not held in regard when push comes to shove.

    The type of thorough investigation that reporters should abide by is impractical because of time constraint, the ability or motivation to find legitimate sources, and politics. There's a reason for the saying "don't believe what you read in the papers." Take what you read with a grain of salt, do your research, then form an opinion
     
  20. IRC

    IRC 1,000+ Posts

    The New York Times was once a great paper, but that is simply no longer true.

    It won't last much longer, in any case. Print media is simply not "immediate" enough to remain viable, (with or without a bailout).

    At this stage, the reporting is sloppy, heavily biased and "a day late".

    (Yo' Pinch, say hello to the buggy whip industry for us!)
     
  21. Wesser

    Wesser 1,000+ Posts

    I don't have any agenda against the Times. Hell, I read the iPhone version practically every day. But this "apology" is practically as bad as the original article. For one, the only error they truly acknowledge is the fact that they did not ask Texas for comment, which they even justify by claiming that Texas would not have been available for comment anyway.

    Then they throw more mud at us by printing yet another unsubstantiated claim from McFarland's mom -- this time about UT booster's race based attacks on JaMarkus. No mention of emails, letters or texts received to back up these claims. Just like in the original article. This isn't any better and I view it as a backhanded rebuke to those offended by the original article.
     
  22. Bob in Houston

    Bob in Houston 2,500+ Posts

    I don't think what the PE wrote was intended to be an apology.
     
  23. huisache

    huisache 2,500+ Posts

    Right. But it is a mark of the True Believer that they can only understand what they want to. It was not an apology by the paper or the Public Editor but the TBs here are going to damn the paper for an inadequate apology.


    The WSJ has limited, but very good, cultural coverage and is not in the same class as the Times at it. It doesn't cover any of the myriad subjects that are everyday subjects in the Times.

    Do you right wingers ever even read it to see what it does as opposed to just going into the Two Minute Hate when it is mentioned?

    And by the way, the WSJ news coverage is excellent but its editiorial page is a lot more biased than the Times.
     
  24. pulque

    pulque 1,000+ Posts


     
  25. Bob in Houston

    Bob in Houston 2,500+ Posts


     

Share This Page