Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]While NYT considers itself the paper of record the nation's conscience, its reporters are expected to be neither omniscient nor even omnipresent. It appears this particular goof is the fault of the front page editor for not confirming the AP story. If it's a two-inch blurb for Section ZZ on taste-tempting Valentine's Day cupcakes, go ahead run it without double checking. If it's a front page story involving life and death, at least make a phone call. -Chris Lawson -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Matt Powell <wooderson@gmail.com> > On 1/4/06, mcyclwritr@comcast.net <mcyclwritr@comcast.net> wrote: > > This exactly the sort of NYT apologist retort I anticipated. That's why > > my > original post >included a whiff of Basic Reporting 101, which, > predictably, is > missing from your reply. > > > > How do you know what the "mining company told family members and > > others?" Was > it >broadcast on TV? > > Oh, dear, I'm an apologist! > > But yes, every other source I've seen followed the same basic outline > - if you look at the CNN story, it refers to how the survivor rumors > got started and the miners' families getting physically angry at the > mining company, who had led them on (presumably by accident). > > I was unaware that NYT reporters were required to be omniscient, > rather than simply using what information appeared to be credible at > the time. > -- > Matt Powell > wooderson@gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information