16 total posts
Did you follow the link
to the Times' own correction?
Their corrections are a joke
If they had any credibility this kind of thing wouldn't make it on their website to begin with.
(NT) The link was from your link, Evie.
I don't see one
Care to provide the direct link?
They may have changed the caption after they were "caught."
... I stand by my assertion that this photo should never have made it on the website to begin with. Knowing nothing about ordinances my first thought was that it looked staged. Enough so that a photo editor should have done SOME work to authenticate it!
or fixed the obvious problem before putting on their web
site. A little Photoshop, and 'presto!'. They might even have come up with a believable image if the knew what such an image actually looks like.
It was only corrected AFTER...
bloggers had pointed out the manner in which the New York Times doesn't even perform BASIC verification before rushing to print.
Their corrections are also normally buried rather deep in the paper where most who saw the original simply never see it.
What's a little fact checking
when you are (NYT) busy slandering an administration??
Why did they need a correction?
That's the point of the post.
Facts mean nothing
when the "TRUTH" needs to be spread... the one and only truth according to the gospel of the NYT.
Kind of like Oprah and the latest author she's pushing.
It 'feels' true. It 'resonates emotionally', so it's true even if it isn't true.
Throws doubt on other claims...
such as the one that al-Zawahiri was not killed or wasn't even there. Or that the people killed were innocent civilians with no connection to Al Quaeda, etc.
From my understanding
the village is a stronghold of terrorists and some were actually killed.
The main problem seemed to be that the Predator was seen for several days before the bombing and, if I were the number 2 man, I would have stayed away too.
What it does best?:...
...Would that be Plagiarising or lying? I believe their sales are "tankin'"