Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Let's see, B.D. says that I don't know anything about journalism because I suggested a phone call be made "by the editor" to confirm the AP story. My mistake; I should have been a little sloppier and suggested "somebody at the NYT should have called somebody somewhere" to confirm the story. Let's see. The NYT is biggest dog in the pound, yes? Yes. So, when the NYT (or a representative therefrom) calls, field reporters answer, right? Most likely. Let's see, Part II. Cellphones are now on everybody, everywhere? Again, yes. So a NYT editor can't get somebody to confirm the biggest story of the day? Malarky. Matt mentions malfeasance? Not an issue, I suppose, unless lawyers for surviving family members choose to include the NYT in their threatened lawsuit(s) against the mining company for reportedly getting their hopes up then dashing them. So, why shouldn't this inaccurate story have run? How about journalistic integrity, for starters? By the way, I doubt Jesus would want to get in the middle of this. : ) -Chris Lawson > How do you know that he DIDN'T make the metaphorical phone call? The > actual news didn't come out until after Eastern dailies went to press > - that's why you'll see similar stories mirrored elsewhere. > > Of course he ran the story - it's the biggest news in the US. They > printed the best information available at the time. Information that > happened to be wrong, because everyone in the chain was wrong. > > You've yet to offer a single reason why the paper shouldn't have run > the story or how it amounts, in any way, to malfeasance on their part. > > Jesus. > > -- > Matt Powell > wooderson@gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information