E&P: 'NYT' Corrects Error in TV Critic Stanley's Review of 9/11 Film

[DeepModem Mom]

Editor & Publisher: 'NYT' Corrects Error in Stanley's Review of 9/11 Film
By E&P Staff
Published: September 09, 2006

NEW YORK -- Acting unusually swiftly, The New York Times on Saturday ran a correction on a review by Alessandra Stanley....Stanley surprised many by being among the few who have seen the film to label it evenhanded, while backing its view that President Clinton deserved the most blame and admitting that it is "fictional." But as E&P and others pointed out immediately, she committed a blatant error in backing the movie's contention that President Clinton was so distracted by the Lewinsky affair that he took his eye off bin Laden. She cited the 9/11 Commission report as her source -- when it says just the opposite.

The Times' correction today notes that the Commission "did not conclude that the scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003119422

[louis-t]

1. OK, so why hasn't she been fired?

[gademocrat7]

2. Yes, why hasn't she been sacked?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. by who? the NYT? or the White House?

is double dipping inappropriate?

[IndianaGreen]

22. Because she replaced Judy Miller as the new fellatio queen

to NY Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

[0007]

23. Much like the many other things that are twisted.......

Who remembers this guy?

[glitch]

4. Is there no end to these replicon stooges in media? An infinite supply

apparently. And why are they hired? And never fired. Nevermind.

[KoKo]

5. NYT's AGAIN blatently panders for the Bushies.. n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

19. Oh, that pesky liberal media

This will, of course, be cited by the reactionaries as "proof" of Clinton's calumny: if EVEN the bolshevik New York Times agrees it's all Clinton's fault, it must be.

I must say, though, that Clinton truly is a trend-setter: he sucked up to the right endlessly out of the false belief that they'd give him a fair shake if pe played ball, and that's exactly what the media's doing. People just don't seem to get that these people just take and take and take, and giving them a break ever so often just whets their appetite for more. The media has been shameless and terrified by their fear of being denied access, and because of this have sucked up to these greasy monarchists to no end.

[whistle]

6. Alessandra Stanley is a right wing Clinton hating nut job....

...who must be constantly watched as she makes stuff up.

[brentspeak]

7. Alessandra Stanley is setting a new record for forcing editor corrections

http://www.gawker.com/news/alessandra-stanley/index.php

[Zenlitened]

8. I dunno. Back when I was a journalist... admittedly, a looong time ago...

... everything I wrote went past an editor. Often more than one.

Those editors were pretty knowledgeable people. And even if I sometimes felt annoyed by their meddling with my carefully crafted prose, I was awfully grateful if they spotted an error in my work, or clarified wording that might have left some readers with a wrong impression.

I guess, what with these newfangled computers and all, reporters write their stories, press "send" and it goes directly to the printing press and onto the pages of the next edition.

Right?

I mean, that must be how it works now, I can only assume. At least at the New York Times?

Because if they had editors and fact-checkers and proofreaders -- not to mention someone who knows what "Google it" means -- then they might still resemble the respected newspaper of old. And they might still have a reputation for producing reliable Journalism.

Oh boy, look at me. I spelled it with a capital "J." Guess I'm really showing my age, huh?

:(

[belab13]

9. Manufacturing Consent

The NYT has been pissing me off more and more lately, especially with the whitewashing they performed on the Mexican presidential elections. Very scary to think that many of this nation's intelligensia, academics, scientists, and business folk still consider the NYT oped page the final word.

[chat_noir]

10. save the article - we'll be needing it

E&P articles disappear to all but subscribers

[ladym55]

11. I'm glad someone landed on that idiot

I found her review insulting and stupid. And she came across as stupid, but it appears as if she was just being herself. Stupid is as stupid does.

NY Times has lost its grip, but then again that's what puts them with the rest of the msm. The difference is their readers ask questions and give them hell on the editorial page.

[McCamy Taylor]

12. If they have to review all her stuff for lies is it worth keeping her?

[civildisoBDence]

13. Thanks for the ammo, Stanley

This issue is working more and more in our favor. When the only reviewer who praises this docu-whateverthehellitis is discredited, the whole enterprise is discredited.

Next we'll learn that DUHbya paid her to write a favorable review...

Newsprism

[Mr_Spock]

14. Is she a RW troll?

Has she been fired yet?

[Marie26]

15. They've had to correct her before

In an article about Stephen Colbert, she called his new word "trustiness", instead of "truthiness." The NY Times had to run a correction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandra_Stanley

[bettyellen]

16. it would seem she doesn't even watch what she reviews, wouldn't it?

or she doesn't bother to take notes because she know's she's just going to write what she was told to.
i thought the review was really odd in that she didn't discuss the acting or any scenes outside of what had been mentioned in other articles.


not only does it look like she'd double dipping, but she's too fucking lazy to actually watch TV. can't believe they put that crap on page 1 of that section. how embarrassing for the nyt.

[Big_Mike]

17. What passes for network TV

is why I mainly watch Discover, The History Channel, and Cartoon Network (10 yo in the house). I fail to comprehend this Docu-drama-tary reasoning. Either it happened, or it's fiction. Alternate History, I always thought, was speculative sci-fi.

What gives?

[bettyellen]

21. she compared it to Oliver Stone's JFK and said this is SOP now...

which is a poor reflection on the times, in light of their recent issues with truthiness.
I think there's a big distinction myself. jfk was speculation about a possible conspiracy that no one ever properly got to investigate because the main players died immediately. there were no records to access, and it was a film, a creative work incorporating theories that have had 30 years to fester.. i don;t believe stone ever called it any kind of docu anything.

path to 9/11 just needed some serious fact checking. as does the NYT these days.

[RamboLiberal]

18. Not surprising - you'd think you could expect more from a NYT

journalist - but alas as Judy Miller and the other trolls they trot out prove we cannot. BTW, one troubling aspect is some of these entertainment reporters don't think it's their job to review historical accuracy just the entertainment value. I found that out when I got in an email pissing contest with my local TV reviewer at the Pittsburgh Post Gazette (that's not the Scaife rag) on Thursday. I was very polite in my emails - he got pissy. I in no way told him how to do his job - just suggested that if all he wanted to do was review the entertainment value then maybe he could pass a hint to one of the news people or to a columnist that there was a big story about this docudrama's falsehoods breaking out. I will give him credit for mentioning in his column that a controversy was breaking out - but of course he had to blame it on "liberals"

You can tell me what my job is until you're blue in the face, but that won't make it my job. My job is to write about TV as entertainment. Does it require context, yes, but I don't have time to spend hours researching something to verify its veracity. Frankly, I thought the miniseries made govt. officials of both administrations look like buffoons, so the complaints are a bit lost on me.
Rob Owen
TV Editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Lead TV writer, Scripps Howard News Service
President, Television Critics Association

(The movie is also provoking some controversy as some liberal organizations charge the miniseries contains inaccuracies about the Clinton administration while soft-pedaling Bush administration blunders.)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06250/719494-237.stm

[FighttheFuture]

30. Yeah, he's just another catapult for "launching the propaganda":

These reviewers make me sick when they hide behind that crap-ass excuse, especially on something as inflammatory as 9/11. What a kool-aid boy!!

[AngryAmish]

20. She needs to be taught a lesson

[Pachamama]

24. Wonder if she ever bothered to read the 9/11 Commission Report?

I did...And when I read my paper on Friday with the "review" of "Path to 9/11" by Stanley, I immediately saw her claim that the 9/11 Commission Report said that the Lewinsky affair had distracted the Clinton Administration.

Sad thing is this: I know it and any one else who actually bothered to read the 9/11 Commission Report, but many people have not read it and they will take that article and believe this as now being "the truth"....

I don't trust the media anymore...I really don't...and the NYT's seems to be hit or miss...the problem is that they do great damage when the don't tell the truth....and little "corrections" never make up for the real damage that was done through the lie....

And I think Ms. Stanley knew even as she wrote that, that it was a lie. Either that, or she clearly never read the report and didn't do her homework....

[samsingh]

25. why have previously even-handed media outlets

become servants of the bush evil empire?

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. And how is the average viewer supposed to know better than NYT staff? n/t

[bamacrat]

27. It wasnt Bills fault, congress was too worried about little willy

and not the things that mattered.

[Auntie Bush]

28. So the rethugs want to say it was Clinton's fault?

Well it was the Rethugs who caused all the distraction by trying to impeach a sitting president while he was dealing with terrorists.
So then that makes it the Rethugs fault. The congressional Rethugs should be taking the blame.

I wonder if any of those turds feels the least bit guilty? :shrug:
Naw! You have to have a conscience to feel guilt.

[FighttheFuture]

29. Horse already out of the barn... time to shoot the horse!! Fire her!!

[Canuckistanian]

31. A small drop of correction

For a tanker ship of lies and distortions.