03-19-2006, 09:40 AM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Was this NY Times story researched as well as this one?
Quote:
he New York Times has been caught peddling a phony front page story about Abu Ghraib, an interview with a man who said he was the infamous hooded prisoner: N.Y. Times’ Iraq Detainee Story Challenged.
NEW YORK - The New York Times is investigating questions raised about the identity of a man who said in a Page 1 profile that he is the Abu Ghraib prisoner whose hooded image became an icon of abuse by American captors.
The online magazine Salon.com challenged the man’s identity, based on an examination of 280 Abu Ghraib pictures it has been studying for weeks and on an interview with an official of the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command. The official says the man the Times profiled Saturday, Ali Shalal Qaissi, is not the detainee in the photograph.
In an e-mail to the Times, Chris Grey, chief spokesman for the Army investigations unit, wrote: “We have had several detainees claim they were the person depicted in the photograph in question. Our investigation indicates that the person you have is not the detainee who was depicted in the photograph released in connection with the Abu Ghraib investigation.”
“We take questions about our reporting very seriously, and we will carefully investigate Salon’s findings,” Susan Chira, the Times’ foreign editor, said in Tuesday’s editions. “We attempted to verify the claims of Mr. Qaissi thoroughly. We spoke with representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, who had interviewed Mr. Qaissi and believed him to be the man in the photographs.”
Interesting. When the Times wants to check a story about Abu Ghraib, they don’t call anyone in the US government. They call Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, two of the most politicized left-wing NGOs in the world.
|
This is followed by a times 'correction'
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html
Quote:
The Times did not adequately research Mr. Qaissi’s insistence that he was the man in the photograph. Mr. Qaissi’s account had already been broadcast and printed by other outlets, including PBS and Vanity Fair, without challenge. Lawyers for former prisoners at Abu Ghraib vouched for him. Human rights workers seemed to support his account. The Pentagon, asked for verification, declined to confirm or deny it.
Despite the previous reports, The Times should have been more persistent in seeking comment from the military. A more thorough examination of previous articles in The Times and other newspapers would have shown that in 2004 military investigators named another man as the one on the box, raising suspicions about Mr. Qaissi’s claim.
The Times also overstated the conviction with which representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International expressed their view of whether Mr. Qaissi was the man in the photograph. While they said he could well be that man, they did not say they believed he was.
|
Quote:
The Times Buries The Truth
In a brief, unsigned article buried deep within the newspaper today, the New York Times admitted that a major "scoop" in the newspaper on Saturday may have been nothing more than a load of ca-ca.
The front-page article, by the Times's house terrorism apologist Hassan Fattah, told the grisly tale of the poor feller who was photographed in a black hood at Abu Gharib. However, Salon last night found that the Times had the wrong guy -- and, as the Times did not point out, that his story had big holes.
Might have been nicer if the piece had run on the front page, particularly given some details that were published in Salon that the Times tastefully omitted. In addition to questioning whether the fellow interviewed by the Times was the one in the photo, Salon also found that other details in the ex-prisoner's story were apparently wrong. That is, the names of prisoners supposedly humiliated at the prison were not correct. Which might well mean that he just made up stuff.
Too bad the Times didn't mention that. I guess saving the paper from embarrassment is a lot more important than admitting that it ran a piece that is looking more and more like a lot of hooey from start to finish.
|
http://mediacrity.blogspot.com/2006/...ies-truth.html
The NY Times has become tabloid journalism, the Old Grey Lady is now offically senile.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host
Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
|
|
|