|
Complaint to the New York Times
When I wrote to the New York Times’ e-mail hotline to complain about Maureen Dowd’s misquotation of President Bush, I got a reply from, of all people, Gail Collins, the Times’ editorial page editor. Here is the exchange: To: “New York Times Hotline” retrace@nytimes.com Dear Sir or Madame, I am wondering why The Times has still not issued a retraction and apology for Maureen Dowd’s staggering misquotation of President Bush. It’s now been about two weeks since this misstatement of Dowd’s was exposed in the media, yet The Times and Miss Dowd have said nothing about it. Also, Miss Dowd’s use of an ellipsis to eliminate Bush’s actual words and radically alter the meaning of what Bush was saying shows beyond a doubt that she knew exactly what she was doing. She is guilty of journalistic fraud of the first degree. Is The Times going to take responsibility for this—or not?
Very truly yours, Dear Mr. Auster, Thank you for your letter about Maureen Dowd’s column. Since the Op-Ed writers of the Times present their own views rather than the paper’s, they have the responsibility for making their own corrections whenever it’s necessary. Ms. Dowd received some complaints about the editing of the quote, and she decided to reprint it in full. We’re confident it was never her intention to distort the meaning. I appreciate your concern and thank you for taking the trouble to write.
Best wishes, Dear Miss Collins: Thank you for your reply. This was not a matter of Miss Dowd’s views or The Times’s views. This was a matter of a quote by President Bush that Miss Dowd grossly doctored to give the impression that Bush had said the exact opposite of what he had actually said, with the intention of making him look like an incompetent or a liar. It is incredible that you as the editorial page editor of The Times would write back to me and say that Miss Dowd’s mere printing of the correct quote in a later column—without any reference to or apology for the first misquote—was a sufficient response to this journalistic outrage. The Times has destroyed its credibility as a newspaper by distorting facts in order to push its own ideological preferences. Are you going to continue in this direction, or are you going to make the fundamental change of heart that will be needed for The Times to restore its reputation?
Sincerely, Comments
Don’t hold your breath, Mr. Auster. It’s been 70 years since Walter Duranty’s fraudulent reporting of Stalin’s little genocide program in the Ukraine. There hasn’t been any retraction or apology to date. Some Ukrainian groups are apparently starting to make a few waves with the Pulitzer Prize committee now. The Sulzburgers and their minions (like Dowd) are like cockroaches who skittle away when exposed to light. Posted by: Carl on June 11, 2003 12:26 PMThe NYT writing staff, editorial boards and religious, fanatical subscribers live in a parallel universe where standards of conduct are quaint relics meant to corral ‘lesser’ journals of record. Maureen Dowd and this Gail Collins are simply the immoral monsters society has created en masse the last 50 years. Because they have suppressed that moral compass inside us all, they have no shame. Posted by: Jeff on June 11, 2003 5:59 PMPosted by: Jeff on June 11, 2003 05:59 PM although it may have not been very sporting of maureen down to a clip a quote, don’t ya think calling her a moral monster is just a teensy bit going over the top and into outer space. i enjoy speading a little too much superlative on my toast with a cup of tea myself, but surely jeff knows it’s impolite and none too appetizing to watch him shove his head into gallon jars of the stuff while trying to lap up every last morsel. besides, there’s no one better at cooking up the politicos and forcing them to eat their own words. Posted by: abby on June 14, 2003 2:59 AM Abby writes, “Although it may not have been very sporting of Maureen Dowd to a clip a quote, don’t ya think calling her a moral monster is just a teensy bit going over the top and into outer space?” No, I don’t. Though I know nothing about this Gail Collins person, I solemnly second Jeff’s trenchant and right-on-the-money comment as it applies to Dowd: truer words were never written, and the comment deserves to be repeated: “Maureen Dowd and this Gail Collins are simply the immoral monsters society has created en masse the last 50 years. Because they have suppressed that moral compass inside us all, they have no shame.” — Jeff No hyperbole, Abby. Just truth … pure, refreshing, bracing, living-breathing truth, for once. Posted by: Unadorned on June 14, 2003 3:15 AMPosted by: Unadorned on June 14, 2003 03:15 AM “Maureen Dowd and this Gail Collins are simply the immoral monsters society has created en masse the last 50 years. Because they have suppressed that moral compass inside us all, they have no shame.” — Jeff “ hmm. we do have a problem here. on the one hand unadorned says we have moral monsters en mass running amok umong us, but we have on the other hand the american exceptionalists who see only purity and light and throw tissy fits whenever it’s suggested that american just might not be the kind of girl a guy would want to bring home to meet his parents. this is a problem… Posted by: abby on June 14, 2003 10:37 AMtalk about hyperbole. ann coulter, never the most balanced schizoid one would hope to meet in a compromising situation, takes a flying leap off ezra pound’s last spring board boldly going where no man has gone before. “Forget About Hussein; Get David Duke! According to R.J. Rummell’s estimates in Death by Government, Stalin murdered 42.67 million civilians during his reign. So what the heck are we doing looking for Saddam Husein (or Bin Laden for that matter); David Duke is on the loose!” Posted by: abby on July 14, 2003 7:09 PMDavid Duke is not on the loose. He is in prison. Mr. Duke’s position on the Jews and Israel is about as bad as it gets. He takes a psychotic view of them not unlike the National Alliance. Comparing the number of people Stalin or Saddam have murdered with Mr. Duke is irrelevant since Mr. Duke lacks the political power to enforce his vision of how things should be. But his ideology is truly evil, hardly different from Hitler’s. He does not well-represent a balanced white racialist perspective; his involvement as a self-proclaimed white advocate only makes the movement look very bad. Posted by: Joel on July 14, 2003 7:55 PMHow’s the ol’ view from the right coming along? everyone still sticking to you guns? although it sure looks like the boys and girls in iraq have also developed a preference for broom handles and glowsticks now? we not only liberated them from saddam, but from their clothes and dignity; and we seem to have gotten the hang of shooting children and other innocents as well. can anyone say war crimes on top of the lies and unjust cause for war. by the way, anyone still willing to admit that bush had neither first nor second title to war? you know, stopping terrorism by fomenting hatred by every person of islam sure doesn’t look too too bright to me. Posted by: abby on May 13, 2004 4:33 PMAbby is a former regular at VFR who, when I asked her last September either to drop her Maureen Dowd-esque, hostile, off-the-wall tone of someone sending messages from the planet Mars, or to stop posting at VFR, chose on her own, with no hard feelings, to say farewell. (My last exchange with her is linked below.) Now she’s baaack and her personality hasn’t changed. With no disrespect meant to Abby, who is a bright person, I must say VFR became a more enjoyable website after her departure. So I’d rather that she not re-commence posting here again. Thanks, Abby, and so long. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001746.html#9274 Posted by: Lawrence Auster on May 13, 2004 5:10 PMSuch a disappointment. Clearly abby has uncommon gifts and a genuine interest in the ideas here. She could be one of the leaders here. I suspect she desires intellectual stimulation (as a person of her intellect would) and is therefore picking fights with her peers. I hope she considers getting the stimulation through teaching here. There are enough bright pupils here to task her and thereby provide the stimulation she desires. If we fail to adhere to our good traditionalist cultural standards, we will suffer the fate of the citizens of Babel, who could not understand one another. David Duke was released in the last few weeks or months. A local television station showed him on the streets last week. Hopefully he will get a regular job and stay out of the limelight. Posted by: P Murgos on May 14, 2004 9:09 AMCarl: “There hasn’t been any retraction or apology to date.” To be fair to the Grey Lady, a 1990 editorial did refer to Duranty’s œuvre as “some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper”. For a good laugh, read the following Trotskyite claim that we’re damning Duranty for the wrong sin. His missing the famine was forgivable; it’s the Moscow Trials reporting that merits an apology! |