| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Dowd issues correction (sorta) |
| 2003-05-28 |
| Edited for length, snarky comments and illogic. In today's column, Ms Dowd corrects a misquote of George Bush without ever admitting that she had misquoted him in the first place, thereby setting a new journalistec low for the NYT! The tactical efficacy and moral delicacy of American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq solidified a trend: the children of Vietnam-scarred boomers trust the government, and especially the military, far more than did their parents, whose generational mantra was "Don't trust anyone over 30." In other words, I and my fellow travellers have failed to destroy the military's image like we did during Vietnam. But damn it, we're trying! As Ms. Toner noted, a Harvard poll found that 75 percent of college kids trusted the military "to do the right thing" either "all of the time" or "most of the time." Two-thirds of the students supported the Iraqi war, with hawks beating doves 2 to 1. This proves my contention that most liberals (sorry, Liberalhawk) don't understand math beyond simple addition and subtraction. Umm, Maureen two-thirds and a 2 to 1 ratio are exactly the same thing, just expressed differently. The president and his posse diverted anger over 9/11 to Iraq, and now they are diverting it to Iran. The Bushies are playing up Al Qaeda terrorists they say are hunkered down in Iran, even as they overlook all the Al Qaeda terrorists crouching in countries the administration doesn't want to demonize, like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. And the hawks have turned to grooming Iranian exiles, who are pumping out reports of secret nuclear labs. Sound familiar? Maureen, you should really stick to things you understand, like fashion and gossip because you really don't understand strategy like "defeat you enemies in detail" (one at a time) and "destroy the biggest threat first." If Dowd had been writing during WWII, she would have criticized Roosevelt for defeating Germany first when, afterall, Japan had attacked us first. "Al Qaeda is on the run," the president said in Little Rock, Ark. "That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely, being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top Al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore." This is the money quote. In a prior column, she had left out the "Right now, about half of all the top Al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead," sentence without an elipsis to indicate the deletion. In college, my profs would have dropped you a grade for something like that. The public should take its cue from Mr. Bush's beau ideal, Ronald Reagan. As the Gipper advised, "Trust, but verify." Can you trust anyone without the moral courage to admit a mistake? |
| Posted by:11A5S |
| #11 The Globe tried the same thing with Barnicle up here. They slapped him on the wrists the so many times he got bagged for being lazy that he didn't feel it anymore. And, since he was that elitist, liberal rags blue collar draw, they really didn't care. He brought in the readership and he figured he could run his scam forever. Then other media people REALLY started checking over his columns and it was like an avalanche. Mikey had a lot of lives too. But when people started sniffing around his catbox, he went down faster then the Iraqi army. The Globe's been a joke ever since, Hope Mo kept good notes. P.S.:Bragg is gone by the way. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-05-28 23:32:05 |
| #10 Hey tu: She's made a lot of enemies, but The Times loves her because she "connects" with female readers. My personal experience with real or perceived rainmakers like Dowd is that they have more lives than cats. Blair went down because ultimately, he wasn't associated with any revenue. From comments I've read on Bragg, he is there solely because he's Raines' (sp?) buddy. If he is no longer a rainmaker, he will probably be next to go. My prediction is that Dowd will get a slap on the wrist, which she will parlay into a snarky column. Regardless of whatever airs they put on, all mass-market media outlets exist to sell advertising, period. Unless you are paying through the nose for it or it is subsidized by a foundation, it's probably not worth a damn. I'll be the happiest guy in the world if I'm wrong, but I think that Dowd will be around for a while. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-05-28 23:02:27 |
| #9 Hmmmmm.11A5S. Check this out: The Times also has a columnist problem http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/87255p-79552c.html Could we have psychic powers? Looks like they might be gunning for her. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-05-28 22:38:44 |
| #8 Barbara: I meant that she made an ethical mistake. Misquoting due to a faulty transcript requires a correction. Purposely distorting a quote like Dowd or Moore do, demands an apology. Dowd is so full of moral relativism that she imagines she can fix the problem by simply putting the correct quote in a later column with no admission of error. Last time I checked, bearing false witness was still in the Ten Commandments. tu3031 is absolutely right. The Internet is rapidly eroding the ability of the dishonest and corrupt to play their twisted games. The printing press brought down princes and popes. The Internet (and blogs in particular) will bring down the likes of Dowd. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-05-28 18:08:59 |
| #7 Maureen, can't you even learn that the country's name is two words (Viet Nam), not one? It even has a literal meaning ("Peaple from the South," or "South People"). Vietnamese are the people, Viet Nam the country. That's about all that's worth saying to Maureen here. |
| Posted by: LVK 2003-05-28 17:12:26 |
| #6 Beyond the Jayson Blair scandal, the Times has a credibility crisis that will only escalate given their roster of liberal hack journalists - Dowd, Krugman, Apple et. al. Thank God for the blogosphere who have exposed the blatant liberal biases at both Times - New York and Los Angeles. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-05-28 16:43:57 |
| #5 How cowardly on her part to now slip in the whole quote without any acknowledgement on her part. First Blair, then Bragg. Could Mo be next? Anyway, I don't read the Times anymore and won't until there's regime change there. It sure has come down in the last decade. |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-05-28 16:13:19 |
| #4 MoDo probably thinks she's so high on the pedestal that she'll never get checked out. Mike Barnicle thought that up here in Boston when he worked for the Globe before he got his clock cleaned. Careful, MoDo. What better way for the Times to convince the public that they're serious about cleaning up their act then by taking down one of their supposed big guns? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-05-28 14:52:58 |
| #3 Mo still hasn't caught on that her catty style just begs non-enthralled readers to fact-check her ass |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-05-28 14:10:57 |
| #2 Can you trust anyone without the moral courage to admit a mistake? But make sure you verify... |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-05-28 14:07:41 |
| #1 Can you trust anyone without the moral courage to admit a mistake? What makes you think it was a mistake? Magpie Dowdy knew exactly what she was doing - she's just trying to cover her |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2003-05-28 12:23:07 |