Tuesday, March 14, 2006

NY Times Caught Fabricating Again

America's Former Paper of Record has been retailing another phony story, this time purporting to get up close and personal with the infamous hooded prisoner who was the most famous image of the Abu Ghraib scandal, The Story That Would Not Die (if you are a leftist). Well, it seems as if the Commies at Salon.com, of all places, have discovered that, as usual, the Times reporters have no clue as to what they're talking about. The AP reports the NYT's usual, mealymouthed reply:
"We take questions about our reporting very seriously, and we will carefully investigate Salon's findings," Susan Chira, the Times' foreign editor, said in Tuesday's editions. "We attempted to verify the claims of Mr. Qaissi thoroughly. We spoke with representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, who had interviewed Mr. Qaissi and believed him to be the man in the photographs."
Frankly, if the NYT took its reporting "seriously," it wouldn't be peddling out-and-out fabrications as news stories. Except that in the world of the hard left, I guess one has to assume that "fake but accurate" is good enough.

But as Little Green Footballs points out, note to whom the NYT turned for verification of its fake but accurate facts: Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International—two Marxist organizations that never met an anti-Bush lie they didn't love.

Says lgf:
Interesting. When the Times wants to check a story about Abu Ghraib, they don’t call anyone in the US government. They call Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, two of the most politicized left-wing NGOs in the world.
Heh.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is why the unnamed source has been so important, Wonker. You could sound like Donald Rumsfeld but be quoting Bin Laden as, historically, one could adopt a voice similar to Alexander Haig's but be quoting Jane Fonda. Until the courts began to say "wait a second", it is possible that all stories attributed to an unnamed source were fake.

L

Wonker said...

Dear Anonymous--

Thanks for the interesting observations, which lead me to a troubling thought. Since we ourselves remain unnamed, could we be fake??

W

Wonker said...

...but accurate??

W