New York Times (again)

Pretty hilarious example of its lefty bias - nice edits!

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23191_Kerrys_Prepared_Remarks&only

lefty bias?

I realize you only pop into P&R to troll people Desslock, but this is bad even for you.

Be fair, Nick. I’m sure Bob Cherub is interested in what Desslock has to say.

Do you similarly call your math teacher a troll for trying to educate you?

When I see “New York Times” is a new Desslock thread, I can only assume that it will be a one-liner saying “THOSE LIBERAL WACKOS”.

And then you realize that it is substantive evidence of left-wing wackiness?

I don’t even understand this link. Is there some confusion over what the phrase “prepared remarks” means?

Oh, and by the way: nice title for the thread. I like how the “(again)” tacitly implies that everybody agrees that the New York Times does, in fact, have a liberal bias and this is merely another example. Clearly, Desslock has levelled up his Republican rhetoric stat.

Huh? Where’s the hilarious bias? That he wasn’t reading his speech from a cue card? That’s pretty obvious, no?

Is the contention here that Kerry really meant to say “dur, troops are stupid”? Do you honestly believe that? Even if you think Kerry, in his heart, thinks the soldiers are uneducated morons, do you really think he meant to say that? Or is this all supposedly some kind of freudian “GOTCHA! YOU REVEALED YOUR TRUE SELF!”. Which of course raises the question – does a Bush supporter really want to play that game?

– gotcha Bush! I DEMAND Bush apologize to every american for his years of scheming to harm us!

Honestly, latching on to this manufactured controversy is pretty sad. Pathetic even. I think the “ALLEN STAFFERS ATTACK!” controversy is equally stupid. The attacks on Hastert almost as pointless. Can we pretend to focus on real issues at least?

It’s just the zillionth example of the New York Times ignoring what’s actually said and done, and instead putting them in a partison “extrapolator” so that they better reflect the the political viewpoint they’re determined to espouse. They deserve to be called on it, so I’m not sure why you’re blaming the messenger.

Remember when Judith Miller helped sell the war? Your conspiracy theories fall before Occam’s Razor.

Dude, I completely agree with you that the focus on Kerry and the other stories are partisan exaggerated controversy (as I’ve stated in the appropriate threads) – that’s not the point.

The point is how the NYTs edits what’s actually said and done, and substitutes or manufactures something more palatable to its political tastes.

They didn’t edit anything, you tard. Those are his prepared remarks vs. what he actually said when he butchered them in his speech. It says that in the article.

Read the linked-thru NY Times article. It is factually incorrect, or at least grossly misleading, in a way that makes what Kerry said seem less bad. Here’s the relevent section of the NY Times article:

It strongly implies that the only thing Kerry changed in the actual delivery was dropping the word “us”, which, in turn, makes it appear Kerry didn’t say anything particularly embarrassing. In fact, what Kerry said according to Little Green Footballs (and, from what I recall, according to most other media sources), was:

…which is much further afield from his prepared text and more of a blunder by Kerry.

So the NY Times writer, intentionally or not, underplayed Kerry’s blunder through either a flat out misstatement of fact, or at best, a very poorly worded (and misleading) paragraph.

I agree that the outrage over Kerry’s statements is a bit of a tempest in a teapot, but that doesn’t excuse media outlets for getting the facts wrong, and if one particular media outlet consistently does this in a way that’s generally favorable to a particular party, then that reflects particularly poorly on them. I don’t know if the NYT makes this kind of mistake routinely, but if so, it’s worth pointing out.

Edit - OK, I read the NY Times article more closely, and his error is even more clear than I thought, because his 2nd paragraph makes the same erroneous/misleading claim:

Sheesh. It’s an image of the troops holding a sign that says, “Halp us Jon Carry we r stuck hear N Irak.”

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=791841&postcount=90

I only missed it by a few hours, but at least mine appears in a different thread.

Your criticisms are probably fair to some extent, but I think it’s worth noting that while “us” was not the only thing dropped in what Kerry actually said versus what was in his prepared remarks, it does change the operative meaning of his remarks. Compare:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, and you study hard, and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

with:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, and you study hard, and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get us stuck in Iraq.

It was arguably disingenuous of The Times to write the story in the manner they did, in that it can be read to imply that “us” was the only thing left out. But the “single word left out” remark is, in my mind, accurate. Certainly if Kerry had said the latter of the two quotes I posted above the republicans would not have been able to glom onto his statement as political ammunition the way they did.

Look, the word he was talking about was “us”. The line that got him into trouble was “get stuck in Iraq”. “Get us stuck in Iraq” was what he was trying to say. Stephen Colbert nailed this one on his show last night. See the Kerry clip on the page:

Did he flub some more lines? Yes. Would they alone have changed the meaning of what was said? No. Would the word “us” have? Yes.

  1. NYT: Rather than stick with what was actually said and done, we dug up a version that we think isn’t as bad – we’re not going to tell you what was actually said, read this instead.

  2. NYT: "In his delivery, he dropped the word “us.” Reality: a hell of a lot more was different from the version the NYT presented than missing the word US, as viscerally indicated.

Thanks for the civil discussion, "Tard!’

Desslock, they said in the article that it was his prepared remarks, and that he deviated from them in his speech. Like Brian says, the lack of the word “us” is what got him into trouble. Hence, you are a tard.