December 31, 2006

NYT Article Claimed El Salvadoran Woman Jailed For 30 Years For Illegal Abortion, When In Fact She Was Imprisoned For Strangling A Newborn Child; Refuses To Correct
— Ace

"Experts."

Posted by: Ace at 01:31 PM | Comments (32)
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

1 fascinating the year should end with this kind of story. a pox on all the msm. maybe time should have made the 'person' of the year 'us' not 'you'.

Posted by: ben at December 31, 2006 01:36 PM (qCROK)

2 What a disgrace to us all, where is the actual truth and facts anymore.

Posted by: viperdisorder at December 31, 2006 01:37 PM (CxLTy)

3 Let's be fair. Strangling your newborn could be considered an "illegal abortion".

It's all about context.

Posted by: Zorachus at December 31, 2006 01:38 PM (Tmbny)

4 Both end with a dead baby. The NYT is happy either way.

Posted by: DSkinner at December 31, 2006 01:46 PM (Z887G)

5 semantics

Posted by: Tushar D at December 31, 2006 01:50 PM (9ULFg)

6 Nuance.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2006 02:01 PM (GlKkD)

7 layers

like crust on a wino

layers

Posted by: eman at December 31, 2006 02:12 PM (FWrFx)

8 if  you kick her in the guts and she drops the kids, manslaughter. Pay $500 and slip her across the state line and it's a 'procedure'.

Nuance, context, it's all about communicating, I say.

Posted by: sandman arriveth at December 31, 2006 03:21 PM (Zc2PN)

9

Both end with a dead baby. The NYT is happy either way.


Best and truest line, ever.


Posted by: Paulitics at December 31, 2006 03:24 PM (47+Ys)

10 Don't conservatives generally think that "abortion" and "murder" are interchangeable words? What's the big semantic hoo-hah, anyway?

Posted by: Doc Washboard at December 31, 2006 03:36 PM (8sOzm)

11 Doc, did you read the article? She murdered her baby after it was born. She did not have an abortion.

In either case, an innocent person died. In all cases of abortion an innocent person is killed. Not all murders involve an innocent victim.

Get a clue. You're being a hemorrhoid with that comment. You got kids? I guess they really dodged a bullet with you as a father, huh?

Posted by: cranky at December 31, 2006 03:42 PM (Xj2Ev)

12 Don't conservatives generally think that "abortion" and "murder" are interchangeable words?

Mighty big brush there Doc.

I think the words "douchebag" and "liberal" are interchangeable, but I really don't know that there's a consensus of opinion on that among all us mind-number robots.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 31, 2006 03:45 PM (hNyWr)

13 * pulls Doc aside and whispers*

Doc, now this is just between me and you, so don't spread this around and you didn't hear it from me. We Conservatives don't like abortion because it cuts down on the pool of gullible stupid uneducated desperate twits we need to ge stuck in Iraq.

Posted by: eman at December 31, 2006 03:54 PM (FWrFx)

14 Doc is engaging in absurd reductivism, ignoring the heinous nature of the crime.

Posted by: Paulitics at December 31, 2006 03:55 PM (47+Ys)

15 Eman, when you pulled Doc aside were you pulling him out of the kitty litter box?

Posted by: pajama momma at December 31, 2006 03:59 PM (+Aq+d)

16 So Doc is attempting to defend gross MSM misreportage by the "fake but accurate" defense once again.

Shocker.

Posted by: ace at December 31, 2006 04:01 PM (4qddO)

17 It's not gross misreportage if the NYT does it.  It's layered.

Posted by: Paulitics at December 31, 2006 04:07 PM (47+Ys)

18 pajama momma,

I found him at the zoo, holding a bucket under a lion.

Posted by: eman at December 31, 2006 04:09 PM (FWrFx)

19 Not good...he's into the "hard stuff". Next thing is we'll find he's heavily invested in saber tooth tiger DNA research...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2006 04:18 PM (GlKkD)

20 I found him at the zoo, holding a bucket under a lion.

Oh that's serious cat crap crazy.

Posted by: pajama momma at December 31, 2006 04:44 PM (+Aq+d)

21 I predict that the NY Times will continue to slant stories.

Wait, isn't this the predictions thread?


Posted by: JayC at December 31, 2006 04:46 PM (G7SJG)

22 Here's the big question I have, and it's a serious one:

Does anyone get reporting right? In the minds of the folks who post here, can any news source be trusted to:

a. get the facts right?
b. know which facts are worth reporting?
c. provide the proper context?

I gues what I'm asking is where does a group of people angry with the so-called MSM get news that it can trust?

Posted by: Doc Washboard at December 31, 2006 06:00 PM (8sOzm)

23 Here's the big question I have, and it's a serious one:

Given the unaddressed turd you dropped up above, Doc, why should we care?

Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at December 31, 2006 07:38 PM (DQDJU)

24

Doc Washburn wrote:  Here's the big question I have, and it's a serious one:


I suppose we can take from that opening sentence that nothing you have written in the past was written by a serious person.  Did you read the article?  Do you understand what the issue was?


Posted by: cranky at January 01, 2007 04:28 AM (Xj2Ev)

25 I doubt seriously that a little snark up above damaged everyone's sensibilities so much that they can't engage in further discussion. Snark is the coin of the realm on the Internet.

Of course I understand the issue. It's impossible to visit this site, or Confederate Yankees or Malkin's or Coulter's, without understanding the issue.

The issue is the idea that newspapers and TV news broadcasts are constructed of lies or, at the very least, shoddy and incorrect reporting, and that you can't trust anything they put forward as news because it's all biased toward the Left.

I won't even argue that issue; it's not the question I have. I'm just wondering where the people here do, in fact, get information they can trust.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at January 01, 2007 05:57 AM (9znIR)

26 I get all my trusted info from Bart!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at January 01, 2007 06:03 AM (S/IRK)

27 Doc, go re-read your comment. You called all conservatives dullards unable and unwilling to differentiate between abortion and murder. Now you defend yourself by claiming to have been snarky while initially failing to address the issue of the MSM refusal to correct its misreporting.

Physician, heal thyself.

Posted by: cranky at January 01, 2007 06:40 AM (Xj2Ev)

28 The difference is the MSM is unwilling to correct errors and will defend them to the bitter end even when shown they are incorrect.
The blogs I read have retractions so fast they're almost reflexive.
It also would appear that the blogs tend to do a lot more investigative work than the general newspapers now do. I'm not talking about "investigative TV shows" which even then have a bias. I do like John Stossel.

The MSM just accepts a stringer's or reporter's word whether it makes sense or not as long as it fits their view. Bush National Guard documents anyone?

And there's innumerous examples out there (only noted if one reads the blogs) of reporting by the MSM that's not factual (Green Helmet Guy, Jamil Hussein, burning Israeli fighter jet, no wait it's trash, it doesn't end) and fiercely defended by the MSM.
sorry about the realllllly loooong sentence

Posted by: pajama momma at January 01, 2007 06:44 AM (+Aq+d)

29 I'm just wondering where the people here do, in fact, get information they can trust.

Oh bullshit. Two days ago you claimed conservatives got their opinions from conservative pundits and talk show commentators, who you called "reporters".

So spare me your dishonest crap. I don't need to dialog with an asshole. Despite your strawman rhetoric, the issue was a reporter got the story blitheringly wrong when it was so easy to have gotten it right, and when confronted with it internally the Times refused to correct the record. As noted by their own public editor. You did notice that, did you not?

It appears as though you didn't even read the thing. Where do you get your information from?

I get my information beamed straight into my skull because Kenneth told me the goddam frequency.

Fuckwit.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2007 07:30 AM (hNyWr)

30 Two days ago, if I'm remembering correctly, the conversation centered on the topic of whether commentators were presenting commentary only or commentary disguised as fact. There was also some discussion of what responsibility commentators had to actually understand the context of the stories, etc., etc.

I'm not sure what strawman rhetoric you're talking about.

I get my news from NPR and the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle web sites, mainly.

I understand that most who post here would say that those sources are inherently flawed, due to bias, shoddy reporting, and so on.

Okay. I'll accept that as fact for the purposes of the discussion.

So where does one go for correct, unbiased reporting? Does such a thing even exist? If I wanted to get the straight scoop, which newspapers, magazines, web sites, and so on would conservatives suggest I read? Pajama momma suggests Stossel, whom I occasionally read at Townhall.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at January 01, 2007 08:01 AM (9znIR)

31 Two days ago, if I'm remembering correctly, the conversation centered on the topic of whether commentators were presenting commentary only or commentary disguised as fact.

Not even close.

You wanted to assert that those who present their opinions as commentary should be held to a higher factual standard than a supposedly "unbiased" reporter.

No one seemed to agree with you. Me included. You seem to want to say (but don't have the balls to do it) that conservatives, particularly those here, merely accept whatever ideas are tossed about by the Limbaughs of the world as unassailable fact.

That's, uh, what's the word I'm looking for, bullshit! Yes, that's it. Bullshit.

The NYT insists this woman has been jailed for 30 years for having an abortion. That is the issue on the table. Deal with that, instead of the rest of this nonsense and perhaps you'll get the dialog you seek.

From someone else.

Bye.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2007 08:39 AM (hNyWr)

32 She sure did,nt receive the kind of attention that AREA YATES got

Posted by: spurwing plover at January 01, 2007 07:45 PM (n7v4a)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
89kb generated in CPU 0.09, elapsed 1.2525 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1912 seconds, 268 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.