NYT dredges up old lie to play damage control

jmotivator · Jun 15, 2017

The NYT Editors printed an editorial regarding the shootings at the Republican baseball practice in an attempt to *in theory* comment on the need for an end to violence and vitriol in politics. It was a noble goal, but in the process they used a long since debunked accusation against Sarah Palin as a way of making a "both sides do it" argument:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.

If this is the best the Editorial staff can muster at the NYT how the hell can we expect better from their staff writers?

You don't end vitriolic politics by wrongly accusing a politician of inciting an assassination.

Hawkeye10 · Jun 15, 2017

jmotivator said:
The NYT Editors printed an editorial regarding the shootings at the Republican baseball practice in an attempt to *in theory* comment on the need for an end to violence and vitriol in politics. It was a noble goal, but in the process they used a long since debunked accusation against Sarah Palin as a way of making a "both sides do it" argument:

If this is the best the Editorial staff can muster at the NYT how the hell can we expect better from their staff writers?

You don't end vitriolic politics by wrongly accusing a politician of inciting an assassination.

You know, at one time it was a good paper..I spent 4 hours with it every Sunday.

Obviously this was a LONG time ago.

SAD!

Taylor · Jun 15, 2017

the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.

Just more evidence of decline for the NYT when its entire editorial board signs on to obvious lies.

Fenton Lum · Jun 15, 2017

So don't support the paper and don't repeat their drivel.

TheGoverness · Jun 15, 2017

I'm about 110% certain that Sarah Palin was not the catalyst that caused the crazy guy to go and shoot all those people in Tucson.

That's trying to find a correlation in two things that just don't connect.

jmotivator · Jun 15, 2017

TheGoverness said:
I'm about 110% certain that Sarah Palin was not the catalyst that the crazy guy to go and shoot all those people in Tucson.

Everyone is 110% certain, except the NYT EDITORS who felt that it would be prudent to falsely blame Sarah Palin for the death of a 9 year old girl in an editorial about ending vitriol in politics.

Visbek · Jun 15, 2017

jmotivator said:
The NYT Editors printed an editorial regarding the shootings at the Republican baseball practice in an attempt to *in theory* comment on the need for an end to violence and vitriol in politics. It was a noble goal, but in the process they used a long since debunked accusation against Sarah Palin as a way of making a "both sides do it" argument:

You sure about that?

That sure looks to me like a map, attributed to Sarah Palin's PAC, putting Giffords in the crosshairs. Just like the NYT said.

Who debunked what, exactly...?

Chomsky · Jun 15, 2017

Hawkeye10 said:
You know, at one time it was a good paper..I spent 4 hours with it every Sunday.

Obviously this was a LONG time ago.

SAD!

Are you sure the paper changed?

Or perhaps the reader?

Chomsky · Jun 15, 2017

jmotivator said:
The NYT Editors printed an editorial regarding the shootings at the Republican baseball practice in an attempt to *in theory* comment on the need for an end to violence and vitriol in politics. It was a noble goal, but in the process they used a long since debunked accusation against Sarah Palin as a way of making a "both sides do it" argument:

If this is the best the Editorial staff can muster at the NYT how the hell can we expect better from their staff writers?

You don't end vitriolic politics by wrongly accusing a politician of inciting an assassination.

I hate to stand on someone else's work, but Visbek's post #7 would seem to directly refute your post.

The NYT appears accurate in it's depiction.

Now if you'd like to draw other inferences, that's your prerogative. But the evidence here stands well on its own.

Hawkeye10 · Jun 15, 2017

Chomsky said:
Are you sure the paper changed?

Or perhaps the reader?

Please Friend, remember who you are talking to.

Last year I tried to get the habit back.....Much much smaller and now a lot of it is crap. ...had to give up....I was getting to annoyed....which was getting in the way of my sex life.

Chomsky · Jun 15, 2017

Hawkeye10 said:
Please Friend, remember who you are talking to.

Last year I tried to get the habit back.....Much much smaller and now a lot of it is crap. ...had to give up....I was getting to annoyed....which was getting in the way of my sex life.

TMI!

But yeah, all newspapers have gotten smaller and have less content.

I assumed you were speaking of editorial content and lean, also. And of writing quality (not necessarily in relation to content). Maybe I misunderstood you. I'm entirely online, and haven't read much in the way of papers in 15 years.

I also love that they still enforce the formal use of address on the initial introduction of an individual in a given piece (i.e. Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton, etc.). It just strikes me as dignified. They also seem to use a relatively high level of vocabulary compared to other newspapers, similar to The Economist in terms of periodicals.

Hawkeye10 · Jun 15, 2017

Chomsky said:
TMI!

But yeah, all newspapers have gotten smaller and have less content.

I assumed you were speaking of editorial content and lean, also. And of writing quality (not necessarily in relation to content). Maybe I misunderstood you. I'm entirely online, and haven't read much in the way of papers in 15 years.

I also love that they still enforce the formal use of address on the initial introduction of an individual in a given piece (i.e. Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton, etc.). It just strikes me as dignified. They also seem to use a relatively high level of vocabulary compared to other newspapers, similar to The Economist in terms of periodicals.

Wow, you know they dumbed the thing down , right?

Trying to be more "relevant"?

The actual paper.

Taylor · Jun 15, 2017

Visbek said:
You sure about that?

That sure looks to me like a map, attributed to Sarah Palin's PAC, putting Giffords in the crosshairs. Just like the NYT said.

Who debunked what, exactly...?

Now where's the "clear link to political incitement" - where's the clear and convincing evidence that Loughner's actions were incited by this map?

ocean515 · Jun 15, 2017

jmotivator said:
The NYT Editors printed an editorial regarding the shootings at the Republican baseball practice in an attempt to *in theory* comment on the need for an end to violence and vitriol in politics. It was a noble goal, but in the process they used a long since debunked accusation against Sarah Palin as a way of making a "both sides do it" argument:

If this is the best the Editorial staff can muster at the NYT how the hell can we expect better from their staff writers?

You don't end vitriolic politics by wrongly accusing a politician of inciting an assassination.

Hi JM.

Of course, I don't think anyone would be surprised by this attempt.

The Giffords shooting had little to nothing to do with political ideology, and the shooting the other day had EVERYTHING to do with political ideology.

Yet, one of the left's ideological partners and loudspeakers falsely makes absurd claims as if they were true. How many candidates on the left used the "bull's-eye" on their strategy maps? Many, as was shown at the time.

Pretty sick stuff, but sadly, completely expected.

Chomsky · Jun 15, 2017

Hawkeye10 said:
Wow, you know they dumbed the thing down , right?

Trying to be more "relevant"?

The actual paper.

Having only read the online edition for many years, I'm going to withhold current judgment on the print edition then in light of your opinion.

If I even ever get around to buying a print copy, that is.

But the occasional online stuff I read seems decent enough.

Visbek · Jun 15, 2017

Taylor said:
Now where's the "clear link to political incitement" - where's the clear and convincing evidence that Loughner's actions were incited by this map?

I've got a better question. What did the NY Times editorial actually say?

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Liberals should of course be held to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.
(emphasis added)

Somehow jmotivator omitted the part of the NYT op-ed that pointed out a connection wasn't established.

Hmmmmmmm.

Meanwhile, there should be no question that the ad in question is far less "Give Peace A Chance," and more "Happiness Is A Warm Gun."

Taylor · Jun 15, 2017

Visbek said:
Somehow jmotivator omitted the part of the NYT op-ed that pointed out a connection wasn't established.

Hmmmmmmm.

Had you bothered to read all the way to the bottom, you would have seen this:

Correction: June 15, 2017
An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

I'm sure jmotivator will be happy to accept your apology.

Harry Guerrilla · Jun 15, 2017

Chomsky said:
Are you sure the paper changed?

Or perhaps the reader?

Of course they did, right under your nose and you didn't notice.
They moved towards political tabloidism, while still retaining the legitimacy of the previous paper.

They're struggling to compete with new media, so they're going for click bait.

TheGoverness · Jun 15, 2017

jmotivator said:
Everyone is 110% certain, except the NYT EDITORS who felt that it would be prudent to falsely blame Sarah Palin for the death of a 9 year old girl in an editorial about ending vitriol in politics.

OK. I don't disagree with that.

Chomsky · Jun 15, 2017

Harry Guerrilla said:
Of course they did, right under your nose and you didn't notice.
They moved towards political tabloidism, while still retaining the legitimacy of the previous paper.

They're struggling to compete with new media, so they're going for click bait.

I've been reading occasional individual major articles online, and they seem fine.

But I haven't sat down with the print edition in over a decade. So I'll respect your advice until that time may come.

polgara · Jun 15, 2017

TheGoverness said:
OK. I don't disagree with that.

Greetings, TheGoverness. :2wave:

Neither do I, but bringing Sarah Palin into it has always been a sure-fire way to generate pages of hateful rhetoric. Amazing that she's still considered newsworthy since nearly 10 years have passed since she was on the losing ticket in 2008! :wow: I'll bet that many other political "losers" wish they had her secret for remaining relevant! :mrgreen:

Gaugingcatenate · Jun 15, 2017

Visbek said:
I've got a better question. What did the NY Times editorial actually say?

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Liberals should of course be held to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.
(emphasis added)

Somehow jmotivator omitted the part of the NYT op-ed that pointed out a connection wasn't established.

Hmmmmmmm.

Meanwhile, there should be no question that the ad in question is far less "Give Peace A Chance," and more "Happiness Is A Warm Gun."

ocean515 said:
Hi JM.

Of course, I don't think anyone would be surprised by this attempt.

The Giffords shooting had little to nothing to do with political ideology, and the shooting the other day had EVERYTHING to do with political ideology.

Yet, one of the left's ideological partners and loudspeakers falsely makes absurd claims as if they were true. How many candidates on the left used the "bull's-eye" on their strategy maps? Many, as was shown at the time.

Pretty sick stuff, but sadly, completely expected.

This reply is directed almost exclusively to you Ocean, using a post by an undisclosed leaner that yet discloses, with pretty much every post I've come across, himself pretty much an undeniably revealed lefty.

His post here being no exception.

There is practically no use in replying to such a blinded by the dark response wherein one cannot even fathom what the NYSlimes just did here and for which, like a super hungry flounder, the rancid bait is swallowed hook, line and stinker...

The NYS asks, oh so innocently, right, "Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl..."

So they display this event in succinct living, bleeding color, tugging at heart strings, laying the blame by implication by its inclusion right after asking and then indicating probably so. So laying this horrific and outrageous crime at the feet of Sarah P simply by including it making the link but then begging off after they just linked it...as if their now senselessly incensed lefty that is still reading the crap they manufacture, ready to believe whatever confirms their bias, is miles mentally past processing the very bland, noncompetive language of this not being a link, a now forgotten, if ever understood, disclaimer of any true link.

About par for the lying scumbag creative authors of performance art slanted news at the NYSlimes.
,

Gaugingcatenate · Jun 15, 2017

Visbek said:
I've got a better question. What did the NY Times editorial actually say?

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Liberals should of course be held to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.
(emphasis added)

Somehow jmotivator omitted the part of the NYT op-ed that pointed out a connection wasn't established.

Hmmmmmmm.

Meanwhile, there should be no question that the ad in question is far less "Give Peace A Chance," and more "Happiness Is A Warm Gun."

ocean515 said:
Hi JM.

Of course, I don't think anyone would be surprised by this attempt.

The Giffords shooting had little to nothing to do with political ideology, and the shooting the other day had EVERYTHING to do with political ideology.

Yet, one of the left's ideological partners and loudspeakers falsely makes absurd claims as if they were true. How many candidates on the left used the "bull's-eye" on their strategy maps? Many, as was shown at the time.

Pretty sick stuff, but sadly, completely expected.

This reply is directed almost exclusively to you Ocean, using a post by an undisclosed leaner that yet discloses, with pretty much every post I've come across, himself pretty much an undeniably revealed lefty.

His post here being no exception.

There is practically no use in replying to such a blinded by the dark response wherein one cannot even fathom what the NYSlimes just did here and for which, like a super hungry flounder, the rancid bait is swallowed hook, line and stinker...

The NYS asks, oh so innocently, right, "Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl..."

So they display this event in succinct living, bleeding color, tugging at heart strings, laying the blame by implication by its inclusion right after asking and then indicating probably so. So laying this horrific and outrageous crime at the feet of Sarah P simply by including it making the link but then begging off after they just linked it...as if their now senselessly incensed lefty that is still reading the crap they manufacture, ready to believe whatever confirms their bias, is miles mentally past processing the very bland, noncompetive language of this not being a link, a now forgotten, if ever read/understood, disclaimer of any true link.

About par for the lying scumbag creative authors of performance art slanted news at the NYSlimes.
,

Harry Guerrilla · Jun 15, 2017

Chomsky said:
I've been reading occasional individual major articles online, and they seem fine.

But I haven't sat down with the print edition in over a decade. So I'll respect your advice until that time may come.

Depending on if you believe James Comey or not, they've already run false stories.
Not to mention that they've just got rid of their public editor, but as you wish

Everyone wants to believe that they're too sharp and educated to be duped.

Chomsky · Jun 15, 2017

Harry Guerrilla said:
Depending on if you believe James Comey or not, they've already run false stories.
Not to mention that they've just got rid of their public editor, but as you wish

Everyone wants to believe that they're too sharp and educated to be duped.

Hey, fair enough. I can respect that. You always struck me as trying your best to be fair and critical.

Now I don't really know, but I do believe at this time that Comey comes across as reasonably sincere.

Barring hard evidence, we all have to make our judgment call on this.

But I must admit, one of the things that causes me to side more with Comey here is Trump's complete lack of credibility. If Trump otherwise appeared sincere and truthful, I might have to move back a bit on the Trump-Comey continuum.

Unfortunately, Trump ceded-away the benefit of doubt a long time ago ...

NYT dredges up old lie to play damage control

Computer Gaming Nerd

Buttermilk Man

Little Miss Sunshine

Computer Gaming Nerd

Stuck In The Circle

Social Democrat

Social Democrat

Buttermilk Man

Social Democrat

Buttermilk Man

Social Democrat

Stuck In The Circle

Little Miss Sunshine

Social Democrat

Social Democrat