• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Report: Kavanaugh won’t commit to recusal from Trump/Mueller related matters

I think the point that ColonelAngus is making is that the NYT should have done a better job with either proofreading or fact checking prior to publishing the article in the first place, especially due to the importance of the factual error.
 
BiffTannen said:
I think the point that ColonelAngus is making is that the NYT should have done a better job with either proofreading or fact checking prior to publishing the article in the first place, especially due to the importance of the factual error.
Click to expand...

So he's saying they should have corrected it and never acknowledged the mistake in the first place.

He said they didn't fact check it. Then he posted a fact check and evidence they didn't fact check. I'm trying to figure out his point. Seems like he's just an right-wing nut searching for something to be angry about.
 
Colonel Angus said:
Here's a novel concept... Why not correct it for accuracy before releasing the story? Do they not proofread at the NYT?

I can understand a USF sociology student making that mistake on his term paper for Ph's class. But the NYT?

I thought we were all about higher standards around these parts??? Obviously not when it's left leaning propaganda.
Click to expand...

Are you clarifying your original intent after publishing your original post? You asked where the fact check was on a published story then provided the fact check and are now saying that you meant they should have checked it before publishing. Why not ensure accuracy of your first post before posting it?
 
So because a proofreader didn't catch the omission of the word "not", the New York Times is less reliable than 5 viral internet rumors? Got it, I think I understand the universe Angus is living in.
 
Deacon923 said:
So because a proofreader didn't catch the omission of the word "not", the New York Times is less reliable than 5 viral internet rumors? Got it, I think I understand the universe Angus is living in.
Click to expand...

The NYT left out "not," therefore he can believe what he sees in the Daily Caller, Stormer, and whatever other Dailys he reads.
 
PhDeac said:
So he's saying they should have corrected it and never acknowledged the mistake in the first place.
Click to expand...

No, I think he's saying they should have gotten it right in the first place. That would be checking your facts before publishing, thus obviating the need for a correction or an acknowledgement of a mistake. Errors are sloppy reporting.
 
BiffTannen said:
No, I think he's saying they should have gotten it right in the first place. That would be checking your facts before publishing, thus obviating the need for a correction or an acknowledgement of a mistake. Errors are sloppy reporting.
Click to expand...

Ding... Ding... Ding.

Just an innocuous mistake by the 'Newspaper of Record" leaving out the "not" in the story. No biggie.

Does anyone know where the correction was noted in the print edition?
 
BiffTannen said:
No, I think he's saying they should have gotten it right in the first place. That would be checking your facts before publishing, thus obviating the need for a correction or an acknowledgement of a mistake. Errors are sloppy reporting.
Click to expand...

So he's saying that in order to believe a news outlet, they have to be perfect. So if they make a mistake and correct it, that's not good enough and they're not credible.
 
Colonel Angus said:
Ding... Ding... Ding.

Just an innocuous mistake by the 'Newspaper of Record" leaving out the "not" in the story. No biggie....NOT!

Does anyone know where the correction was noted in the print edition?
Click to expand...

Fify
 
Junebug said:
Based on the last few posts it would seem the board agrees. Nothing matters but the libs who troll.
Click to expand...

BiffTannen said:
No, I think he's saying they should have gotten it right in the first place. That would be checking your facts before publishing, thus obviating the need for a correction or an acknowledgement of a mistake. Errors are sloppy reporting.
Click to expand...

Colonel Angus said:
Ding... Ding... Ding.

Just an innocuous mistake by the 'Newspaper of Record" leaving out the "not" in the story. No biggie.

Does anyone know where the correction was noted in the print edition?
Click to expand...

 
PhDeac said:
So he's saying that in order to believe a news outlet, they have to be perfect. So if they make a mistake and correct it, that's not good enough and they're not credible.
Click to expand...

You'll have to talk to him about the overarching implications of how he feels about the credibility of everything he reads from every news outlet, but the NYT made a material mistake in this case. It will, however, have no bearing on the possible confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh.
 
PhDeac said:
So he's saying that in order to believe a news outlet, they have to be perfect. So if they make a mistake and correct it, that's not good enough and they're not credible.
Click to expand...

Yep... that's exactly what I'm saying. News outlets have to be perfect to be credible. :rolleyes:

So the NYT posts a bombshell Kavanaugh story with inaccuracies which later has to be amended/corrected because of the error. Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

But then to post a 'Fact Check' article shortly after regarding inaccurate rumors around the Kavanaugh story is delicious hypocrisy.

Where was the NYT 'Fact Check' article after Paul Krugman wrote the markets would crater when Trump was elected?
 
Colonel Angus said:
Yep... that's exactly what I'm saying. News outlets have to be perfect to be credible. :rolleyes:

So the NYT posts a bombshell Kavanaugh story with inaccuracies which later has to be amended/corrected because of the error. Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

But then to post a 'Fact Check' article shortly after regarding inaccurate rumors around the Kavanaugh story is delicious hypocrisy.

Where was the NYT 'Fact Check' article after Paul Krugman wrote the markets would crater when Trump was elected?
Click to expand...

Doubling down on dumb?

What other inaccuracies were there? You mentioned one.

Krugman made a prediction. It was wrong.
 
You want a fact check because an opinion piece prediction didn’t turn out to be true?

Biff, are you going to translate this one too?
 
Last edited:
Colonel Angus said:
Yep... that's exactly what I'm saying. News outlets have to be perfect to be credible. :rolleyes:

So the NYT posts a bombshell Kavanaugh story with inaccuracies which later has to be amended/corrected because of the error. Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

But then to post a 'Fact Check' article shortly after regarding inaccurate rumors around the Kavanaugh story is delicious hypocrisy.

Where was the NYT 'Fact Check' article after Paul Krugman wrote the markets would crater when Trump was elected?
Click to expand...

holy shit dude
 
Angus, who do you trust for news?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top