In response to:

Doing the Research the New York Times Won't Do

absinthe48 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 7:31 AM
I disagree with Ann's remark in her first paragraph, that the Times would not allow activists to publish "evidence" in any other context without fact-checking it first. The Times allows its journalists to blather, and it doesn't mind that their "facts" are manufactured, as long as the "facts" advance its owners' agenda. Remember that the Sullivan case established the media's immunity from libel suits. That case arose against the Times because one of its reporters made up facts smearing an Alabama official. Libel was okay when it was in the service of the civil rights' movement.
Marie150 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 8:44 AM
everyonesfacts4usall Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 7:45 AM
Ummm, no.
The Times corrects its own journalists.
Outside opinions, including letters, are not fact checked by the Times (or even corrected in the corrections column).
NYT columnists are.
The correction above would be with the quote not the actual statistics.
absinthe48 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 8:25 AM
I read the Times on a daily basis. I like the paper. It is good on such things as cultural trends, especially its "Dining In/Dining Out" section. Its correction column talks about trivial things: "Madonna wore a maroon bra, not an orange bra, at her performance, as we incorrectly reported." On big issues, the editorial line is reflected in what the journalists are allowed to report. The real power of media is the power to suppress truth, but it is true that the immunity of the American media was established in a case involving the lies of a Times' reporter.
Marie150 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 8:45 AM
Then why was the article that Ann is using in the NYT?
everyonesfacts4usall Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 2:15 PM
Marie I don't understand the question.
The column Ann refers to is a guest columnist in the opinion pages.
everyonesfacts4usall Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 2:17 PM
Absinthe, I would need to see proof of the NYT suppressing its own reporters. They have supressed news, or held it (a form of supression), by request of the government from time to time.

In Sunday's New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, "More Guns = More Killing." She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: (1) anecdotal observations; and (2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.

There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John...