
The number eight may not turn out to be so lucky for New York City comptroller John Liu.
The New York Times has raised questions about the source and legitimacy about some of the New York mayoral candidate's campaign contributions.
Liu recently announced that he had raised $1 million in the first six months of the year, much of it from donors who gave $800 each--to reflect the number 8, which is lucky in Chinese culture. The massive haul placed Liu firmly in the top tier of candidates looking to replace Michael Bloomberg next year.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)The Air Force is now blocking the web sites of the New York Times, the Guardian, and other news outlets that have posted diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks.
According to the Wall Street Journal and Reuters, the Air Force ordered the sites blocked from personnel computers last month. An Air Force spokeswoman told Reuters that the Air Force "routinely blocks Air Force network access to websites hosting inappropriate materials or malware (malicious software) and this includes any website that hosts classified materials and those that are released by WikiLeaks."
She said 25 sites have been blocked.
Although anti-Wikileaks crusader Sen. Joe Lieberman said yesterday that the New York Times' publishing of the leaked cables "bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department," the Times says no such inquiry is, to their knowledge, taking place.
"The New York Times has not been contacted by anyone in law enforcement," a spokeswoman tells TPM.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who has become one of the most vocal critics of Wikileaks, said today that while Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is definitely guilty of crimes, the New York Times may also have broken the law by posting some of those diplomatic cables.
"To me, the New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship," Lieberman said on Fox News today. "Whether they've committed a crime, I think that bears very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department."
Lieberman acknowledged that the idea is "sensitive" because "it gets into the First Amendment."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Who is J.C. Owsley? Yesterday, we pointed out a terrific infographic in The New York Times, which listed the top salary earners in the country in 1941, and their tax rates. Among the names were well-known titans of industry: Thomas J. Watson, President of IBM; Eugene G. Grace, President of Bethlehem Steel; and Louis B. Mayer, General Manager of MGM. Number one on the list was a gun manufacturer, Carl Swebilius, and his wife Hulda Swebilius. But two of the names on the list, J.C. Owsley and C.S. Woolman, were labeled "unable to identify" by the Times. In a footnote, the paper attributed the lack of information to possible typographical errors in the documents it had received from the National Archives. According to the list, Owsley earned $486,244 and Woolman earned $442,142 in 1941. Could some of the nation's richest individuals really be so obscure? After some research (and the help of some reader tips), we think we've identified both men -- but Owsley's is the trickier case.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)The New York Times today published two more examples of Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal suggesting that he served in the Vietnam War.
In one, unearthed by the Stamford Advocate's search through its archives, Blumenthal says he "wore the uniform in Vietnam."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)In its bombshell story on Richard Blumenthal's military record this week, the New York Times took a few paragraphs to mention Blumenthal's college athletic record, framing it as an example of his willingness to mislead. Not only had he never served in Vietnam, the Times wrote; he was never on the Harvard swim team, either.
"On a less serious matter, another flattering but untrue description of Mr. Blumenthal's history has appeared in profiles about him. In two largely favorable profiles ... Mr. Blumenthal is described prominently as having served as captain of the swim team at Harvard. Records at the college show that he was never on the team," wrote the Times reporter, Raymond Hernandez.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)The New York Times says a longer video of the March 2008 speech in which Richard Blumenthal said he "served in Vietnam" -- and in which he also also correctly says he served "during Vietnam" -- doesn't change its story about Blumenthal lying about his record. A Times spokesman also urged Blumenthal to come clean to voters.
"The New York Times in its reporting uncovered Mr. Blumenthal's long and well established pattern of misleading his constituents about his Vietnam War service, which he acknowledged in an interview with The Times," said Diane McNulty, a spokesman for the Times. "The video doesn't change our story. Saying that he served 'during Vietnam' doesn't indicate one way or the other whether he went to Vietnam."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Earlier this week, the New York Times ran a story about the ambiguous way Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal describes his military service. In the Times' strongest example of Blumenthal's misrepresentations, he says, "when I served in Vietnam."
But as the Associated Press points out today, in a longer version of the speech -- which has been posted on the YouTube page of one of Blumenthal's Republican opponents since the Times story broke -- the attorney general also describes his military service more accurately, saying he "served in the military during the Vietnam era, in the Marine Corps."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Here we go again.
You may remember the series of posts we did last spring on a splashy New York Times front-pager that was originally headlined "1 In 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds."
TPMmuckraker pointed out that, among other flaws in the story and the Defense Department study on which it was based, the piece simply accepted the Pentagon's assumption that all Guantanamo detainees were jihadists when they entered the prison. Under that theory, all detainees who were allegedly engaging in terrorism had therefore "rejoined" the fight. In fact, there's evidence that that assumption is false.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt has written a dissection of the paper's front-page story on Guantanamo "recidivism," concluding the May 21 piece was "seriously flawed and greatly overplayed."
The story, which originally ran under the headline "1 In 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds," was the subject of an "editors' note" Friday walking back several of its claims.
Hoyt writes today: the story "demonstrated again the dangers when editors run with exclusive leaked material in politically charged circumstances and fail to push back skeptically."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)The New York Times has published a lengthy "Editors' Note" rolling back key claims in its front-page story on Guantanamo "recidivism" last month, and the paper's Washington bureau chief concedes it wouldn't have been a Page 1 story if the paper realized the errors in the story when it ran.
"It's something that we thought we needed to explain to readers to amplify the story and to correct something we got wrong," Dean Baquet, NYT Washington bureau chief, told TPMmuckraker.
Baquet added that, given the factual errors, "I'm not sure it would have led the paper" but still believes that the piece was "a legitimate news story."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (12)We've gotten our hands on the Pentagon report on which the New York Times based its front-pager last week asserting that 1 in 7 Guantanamo detainees "returned" to terrorism.
You can read the document, which the DOD made available to reporters today, here.
The bottom line: Those who have counseled skepticism about the DOD numbers would seem to be vindicated by the actual report.
The report does indeed use the formulation "reengaged" in terrorism. This was the same formulation the Times' Elisabeth Bumiller used in her front-page story -- until the online version of it was changed.
But the Pentagon report does not attempt to establish the original status of the detainees it claims "reengaged" in terrorism. It seems to simply not consider the possibility that, as has been reported by McClatchy, innocent men ended up in Gitmo, and some were radicalized during their imprisonment.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)New York Times standards editor Craig Whitney has now chimed in on the paper's changes to its front-page story on "recidivism" among freed Guantanamo detainees -- and Whitney is joining a colleague who thinks the after-the-fact rewriting of the front-page story's headline and lead was no big deal.
Here's Whitney's rather tortured reasoning for why there was no need to issue a correction, as paraphrased by Michael Calderone of Politico:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)Michael Calderone at Politico has gotten comment from the New York Times Washington bureau chief, Dean Baquet, about the paper's changes -- sans correction -- to the online version of a story on freed Guantanamo detainees engaging in terrorism that was on the front page of the print paper Thursday.
At issue were changes to the headline and lead of the story that amounted to a walk back of its original claim that one in seven Gitmo detainees "returned" to terrorism. The headline shifted from "1 In 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds" to "Later Terror Link Cited for 1 in 7 Freed Detainees."
The difference is between a story about the government blundering by letting hardened terrorists free, only to rejoin the fight against America, and a more complicated story in which some Gitmo detainees may have become radicalized while imprisoned.
Baquet thinks the changes, which would seem to speak to basic assumptions about the nature of Guantanamo, were no big deal, and therefore did not warrant notifying Times readers in a correction or editor's note.
Here's what he told Calderone:
Reading some of the criticism it seems that people are saying it undercut the story. It did not. The story was about the estimate of the number of people who ended up, by DOD"s account, as being engaged in terrorism or militant activity after leaving Gitmo. That still stands. The change was an acknowledgment that some assert that not everyone in Gitmo is truly a terrorist. Some critics have said that Gitmo is also filled with people who aren't truly terrorists.Anyone who is reading a significant retreat in the story, or as us somehow saying the story is wrong is looking for politics where it ain't.
The problem here is that the use of variations on the word "return" throughout the original story was wrong and significant. And keep in mind that the story was pounced on by right-wing media and picked up on cable, where the "returned to jihad" phrasing was endlessly parroted. (Others have pointed out the credulousness of the piece on other fronts.)
As we said above, the use of this phrasing speaks to important assumptions about what happened at Guantanamo -- and, potentially, how we deal with detainees there in the present. Which is presumably the same reason why the Times rewrote the headline and lead of the piece.
New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller is now casting doubt on the claim in her front page story today, pounced on by the right and quickly picked up on cable, that one in seven detainees released from Guantanamo "returned to terrorism or militant activity."
Appearing on MSNBC today, Bumiller said "there is some debate about whether you should say 'returned' because some of them were perhaps not engaged in terrorism, as we know -- some of them are being held there on vague charges."
Here's the video of her exchange with Andrea Mitchell:
Bumiller's claim is so striking because her A1 story in the print edition of the Times today, which ran under the headline, "1 In 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds" (emphasis ours), began:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (40)
