The Boston Globe lied? How could this be? The New York

because the story fit so perfectly with its editors' agenda that they apparently felt no need to verify known "truth" even if, as it turns out, it hasn't happened yet.

Now, if the point instead is that we should quibble about the exact moment of untruth by whom at the Boston Globe, one could argue that lie was made long ago and consistently remade when they hold themselves out journalists, i.e, objective reporters of news that their readers need or would want to know or more fully understand. But I digress...

dw

ahead of time, and accidently got into the paper at the wrong time?

fabricated as the article says.

Mike Barnicle (shudder), Patricia Smith and now this. You would think they'd employ some fact-checkers. They seem to have a problem distinguishing reality from fantasy.

Since I live in "the area" the Globe's recurrent follies and biases are familiar to me.

http://www.transparencynow.com/globewr.htm

reporter knew he/she was lying. The reporter is an agent of the Boston Globe, and was acting in his/her official capacity. Therefore, the Boston Globe, thru its legally designated agent, KNEW that it was lying. The Boston Globe cannot say that it doesn't know what its reporters are saying. It also can't say it should not be held responsible when they lie. It is its duty to be sure that what it publishes is true. If it argued otherwise, it would be laughed out of a court of law.

The Globe, like SeeBS, saw a story that fit its agenda, and, when it published, it said it was true. If it was not true, then the Globe lied when it said it had done what was necessary to insure that it was true.

I did not lie. The Boston Globe lied from at least two points of view, and it did so deliberately. In the first case, through its agent. In the second case, by representing that it had mechanisms in place and operating to detect lies when it did not have these in place and operating.

a reason to accept an employee's veracity through the employment contract the employee signs. Same with CBS. If most of the story checks out on fact checking (assuming it's done independently) then they run it.

Rob

At any rate, you still don't get it. The employee doing his/her job is an agent of The Boston Globe! When its agent says something, The Boston Globe says it. If the employee lies, The Boston Globe lies. How do you think the paper would otherwise lie? It's not a person. It, the corporation, cannot do anything by itself. It only does things when its employees do things.

This isn't a matter of logic and argument. This is the law.

BTW, accepting an employee's veracity because an employee promises to tell the truth is NOT exercising due diligence. The newspaper must have mechanisms in place to insure that employees do not lie.

Get OVER IT! You claimed something, and were wrong. Sheesh!

suggestion that one of your beloved liberal newspapers lied. Why aren't you equally outraged when certain people, yourself included, run around claiming that President Bush lied? For example, how to you KNOW that George Bush wasn't mistaken about WMD? How do you KNOW that he knew they weren't there, but said they were anyway. Isn't that what you claim a lie is? Have you been lying about George Bush and the Republicans? If not, what evidence do you have that proves George Bush KNEW he was lying about WMD?