While we wait for the New York Times to hopefully correct last week’s puff-profile on Rightwing scam-artist Andrew Breitbart, in regard to their demonstrably inaccurate statements about what occurred in his and James O’Keefe’s phony “pimp” hoax videos, I just noticed that the paper, which already corrected another point in the same piece, seems to be purposefully covering for Breitbart’s own original lie in their corrected text of the article.
At this point, they seem to be going out of their way to avoid calling Breitbart a liar, even if it means, impossibly, attempting to cover up for the very lie the paper states he originally told them!
As we noted last week, the Times issued a correction to Jeremy W. Peters’ softball story, where he had originally reported that, in Breitbart’s selective clip from a speech by then USDA official Shirley Sherrod, audience members (according to Breitbart, but inexcusably never fact-checked by the paper before publication) “applauded” when she discussed her initial reticence in helping out a white farmer decades earlier.
In fact, as Media Matters first detailed on the day Peters’ NYTimes article was published — and as easily apparent to anybody who bothered to view the selective clip that Breitbart published at his websites under the inaccurate headline “NAACP Awards Racism” — the audience at the speech did not “applaud.”
In the course of correcting the inaccurate report, however, which had previously asserted that “Breitbart said…the crowd applauded,” the Times is now offering a completely different story about what Breitbart “said” — a story that differs with their own published correction on the very same page!
Here’s what the original June 26 version of the Peters’ NYT report stated [emphasis added]…
In the Times’ June 29 correction, as posted now at the bottom of the article, they clearly state [emphasis added]…
Setting aside the complete subjectivity required to assert with any certainty that “the audience members nodded and murmured in apparent approval,” the corrected text of the Peters’ NYT story now reads as follows [emphasis added again]…
Um, isn’t the “Paper of Record” trying to have it both ways here?
Either Breitbart “said” the audience “applauded” or he “said” the audience “nodded and murmured in apparent approval.” He didn’t say both to the paper. Or, if he did, the Times needs to explain as much since, as their own correction on the very same page confirms, “Breitbart stated that they” applauded!
This story is now going from shoddy to shoddier, even as we wait for the Times to get back to us in regard to the other errors in the same story, the ones we highlighted over a week ago concerning the phony ACORN “pimp” hoax tapes, which, as we noted in an update to our most recent story on this mess, the office of the Times Public Editor now claims to be “look[ing] into.”
As Matt Gertz noted at Media Matters when he highlighted the Times’ Sherrod error in the story originally, whether or not the “crowd applauded” — as the Times initially reported Breitbart as claiming, and as they now admit was inaccurate — “is not an opinion; it is an assertion of fact that can [be] easily verified” with a “bare minimum of fact-checking; the out-of-context clip is only 2 minutes 36 seconds long.”
The Times, as evidenced by their own correction, has now done that, as they should have in the first place, and concluded that the crowd “did not applaud,” even though, as they say, “Mr. Breitbart stated that they did.”
But they’ve gone on to further cover up for the well-established partisan con-artist by amending their original inaccuracy to report, instead, that he “said…that some audience members nodded and murmured in apparent approval.”
Their original error was inexcusable and, if granted the most generous benefit-of-the-doubt, extraordinarily lazy. Their subsequent reverse engineering of what “Mr. Breitbart said,” however, seems to be an outright lie upon its very face, if we are to believe the paper’s very own correction!
Gertz’ Media Matters article was headlined, “Why Is The NY Times Helping Andrew Breitbart Lie?” It was a good question then, but it’s an even better question now.
The paper’s botched attempt at rewriting history is now deserving of its own correction or, more appropriately at this point, a detailed explanation for the apparent effort to seemingly allow Breitbart to have it both ways, rather than simply calling him out for what he has proven himself in the past, time and again, and once again now, to clearly be: a liar.
The top-tier, not-liberal-at-all “liberal media” bastion continues its long-established record of propping up fake conservatism and those who propagate it — even if they have to help the liars lie by lying for them, under the still-respected imprimatur of this nation’s “Paper of Record.”
Hacker allegedly breaches Florida voting database
link to original site
What’s next for the New York Times — a sympathetic portrait of David Duke? The New York Times is shameless and despicable, promoting a racist hatemonger and fascist propagandist. To be fair, the New York Times never deserved its lofty reputation, but now even less so than ever before. Despite being repeatedly exposed for their bare-faced lies before by Brad Friedman, Eric Boehlert of Media Matters, Noam Chomsky and many many others, the New York Times trashy “news” tabloid, does so again and again like a shameless harlot. What a rag. Anyone who spends money to buy the New York Times is investing in lies and unethical behavior.
Here’s the QR code for this article for mobile device users’ convenience. I hope someone prints and distributes it at Grand Central Station:
QR Code to This Article
The Times‘ motto: If at first you don’t completely fail, try, try again.
What, exactly, is wrong with the NYT? What makes them relentlessly defend a serial liar? I truly don’t get it. Sometimes it feels like I live in Crazy Land. You know that feeling?
I’ve noticed hardcore right wingers will defend him no matter what. My guess is that they have some over at the NYT. That, and they keep getting pounded for supposedly being too liberal. This would not counterbalance that, however.
Go Fred!!! The Mittster is a fraud and a phony. Looks like he uses he $$$$$$ clout to buy his way out of everything.
Has BradBlog.com been de-indexed from Google news search results? It isn’t showing up any more?
@adam – quite possible that bradblog was seriously mauled by the google panda/farmer update. My site was. Lots of angry website owners out there. They claim to have been going after “content farms” and enhancing the “user experience”, but it appears to have been an epic fail with many legitimate sites nearly disappearing, and often having the opposite effect.
I wonder if there is any political motive in any of these updates.
Regarding Breitbart – what a scumbag, but the NYT is even worse for not doing there job
… aj said
Google has become like the Pentagon and the defense industry, with no one questioning their practices. Google has become more fascistic and autocratic as its power, influence, and scope increases. I’ll wager that political motives factor big-time into their mauling bradblog’s appearance in news searches. Care to contact Google about it to express your concerns? Good luck. They don’t have any easy, transparent, or accountable way of contacting them. Why on earth would Google de-index an important and needed investigative journalist? Answer: political motives disguised and something else?
Thank you for noticing, Adam. Yes, I only recently noticed and not sure when or why it happened. Has happened before, years ago, and I’m trying to get them to restore us properly to Google News where we’ve been from damn near the beginning.
Just one more maddening hurdle, fending off the bullshit and attacks. Just another day’s work around here.
Your help, support and noise is always greatly appreciated.
Brad, Google’s de-indexing is an outrage. I’m guessing that it is probably a as result of the fascist-extremist noise machine, or perhaps complaints for New York Times? I think you should have an article dedicated to the Google de-indexing issue providing some kind of means of contacting Google with our concerns, whether it is via Google’s “Give Us Feedback” or something more direct. If you put bradblog and andrew breitbart” in a Google news search, nothing shows up. Something stinks big time with Google and they deserve to hear about it.
re. GOOGLE etc….
Google, Yahoo & Facebook Are Hiding Things From You
re. GOOGLE etc….
“Google, Yahoo & Facebook …”
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants including:
Zoot Pictures Inc.
Zoot Pictures Inc.
Douglas Gilford”
Just googled breitbart bradblog and got a ton o’ stuff. Maybe it’s fixed?
#5
Question: What exactly is wrong with the NYT?
Answer: From the 14 Points of Fascism
6. A controlled mass media
Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
… David Lasagna said on 7/7/2011 @ 2:09 pm PT…
Did you do this in the Google News search or Web search. Here’s what I got:
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=ooo+l#hl=en&q=bradblog+breitbart&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=nws&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=81fabbd49c51addf&biw=1561&bih=922
The above link was “TED” vid WTF copyrighted ,no way !
I just did breitbart bradblog google search on my crapberry & got all the right responses… http://www.google.ca/search?q=breitbart+bradblog&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Search
Anyway, keep up the good fights, Brad. I hope the donation trend has increased. I’m embarrassed how long it took me to get around to doing mine, but now you’re on my credit card & there you will stay til I’m a goner…
Everyone, keep up your chins-the impending October 6th national strike in DC looms, 10th anniversary of 9/11 looms, and today is the anniversary of the false flag operation in London (7/7), so remember-it’s NOT your imagination!! You are NOT insane! There is no need to adjust your screen because in FACT you’re being fed a load of HOGWASH.
Stay here for the facts, then take it to the streets.
That’s all I gotta say… For now anyway.
Sophia said…
That’s was Google Web you searched, not Google News.
Try this:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=breitbart+bradblog&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Search#q=breitbart+bradblog&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=nws&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=81fabbd49c51addf&biw=1561&bih=879
“and today is the anniversary of the false flag operation in London (7/7) ”
Peter Powers ….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvkhe3rqtc&feature=player_embedded
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-terror-rehearsal.html#mockbroadcasts
“Live ITV News interview with Peter Power, the Managing Director of Crisis Management firm Visor Consultants who was ‘actually running an exercise… based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations that happened’.
Recorded at 8:20pm on the evening of the London Bombings.
For more information on the events of 7th July 2005, please see:
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-terror-rehearsal.html
Peter Powers…interview ,this defies coincidence !
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wpSIKdJG89k/R2H7kIkRmvI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/FmCYYGiLKuU/s1600-h/j7-flyer-v4-single.jpg
‘Mock Broadcasts’ and the 7/7 terror rehearsal
On 8th July 2005, the day after the death and destruction in London, an interview with Peter Power appeared on page 5 of the Manchester Evening News in which Mr Power revealed that, not only had he coincidentally been running a terror rehearsal ‘based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened’ on 7th July, he had also organised a series of ‘mock broadcasts’ for the rehearsal operation that were apparently so realistic those participating in the exercise became confused about what was real and what was not:
Mr Power said: “I was an inspector at the time of the King’s Cross fire and was involved in co-ordinating the operation.
“After leaving the Met, I set up my own crisis managment consultancy. Yesterday we were actually in the City working on an exercise involving mock broadcasts when it happened for real.
” When news bulletins started coming on, people began to say how realistic our exercise was – not realising there was an attack.
We then became involved in a real crisis which we had to manage for the company.”
Mr Power added: “During the exercise we were working on yesterday, we were looking at a situation where there had been bombs at key London transport locations – although we weren’t specifically looking at a scenario where there had been a bomb on a bus.
“It’s a standard exercise and briefing that we carry out.”
Source: Manchester Evening News, Page 5 – 8th July 2005
LINK
Brad, the timing of the de-indexing suggests that the New York Times had a hand in it. It is an effort to de-legitimize your well-researched investigative journalism. Obviously, the New York Times is again displaying its lack of journalistic integrity and now trying to hide it. What a rag. I am surprised that there isn’t more of an outcry over this? Media Matters, what do you think about this?
(For future replies, I am referring to searching Google News and not Google Web, so please don’t mix the two up.)
Brad, here’s what Google has to say about this. I don’t buy or believe their explanation, but here it is:
http://www.google.ru/support/forum/p/news/thread?tid=45aef6ca63d48e45&hl=en
From Gary Illyes
Google Employee
2:21 AM
I updated this site’s [BradBlog.com] information in our systems and we may start to crawl and potentially index more articles in Google News.
The issue was related to our policy about very large pages (byte size) which is documented at http://www.google.com/support/news_pub/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=93994
Did you find this answer helpful?
Google’s explanation is very suspicious, to say the least. I’d reckon it is a downright lie. The bradblog news feeds look like standard WP feeds. Is Google lying, too? Well, Google, are you lying?
Disclaimer: I am not an expert on Google’s indexing/de-indexing regulations and technical matters pertaining to their explanation for de-indexing bradblog.com on Google News search. So, therefore I’ll go along with Google’s explanation. Would they have de-indexed big corporate lying news rag New York Times for the very same reasons? Perhaps so? I’ll defer interpretation of Google’s explanations to Brad and others more qualified to evaluate it.
Adam – I will try to look into their “Page Too Large” error to see what that’s about, though we haven’t changed anything with regard to page size at any time in the recent past. Perhaps THEY changed Google News requirements recently.
Unfortunately, I’m on the road this week and next, making it harder to make any substantive page/coding changes. So it MAY have to wait until I’m back in one place before I can fully tend to whatever they are referring to.
And again, I much appreciate your dogged persistence here. That said, let’s rule out all other possibilities before we presume nefariousness (though, given the many ways we’ve been targeted by bad guys over the years here, I certainly understand the impulse!)
Brad Friedman said
Let’s leave the conspiracy theories to me, the lies to Andrew Breitbart and his loving sibling-at-arms the New York Times, and real journalism to Brad Friedman.
Adam,
Yeah, sorry, I’m computer not savvy. I guess I just did a google web search.
David Lasagna said….
Nothing to apologize for. Most people would miss that, but not media sources. While most people would miss it, it is definitely very damaging to BradBlog.com’s internet presence. I am curious how this whole Google News deindexing Bradblog.com saga will unfold. The response from Google didn’t actually assure that BradBlog.com investigative journalims pages would be reindexed, only that it could “potentially” happen. You can be sure that if it had been New York Times pages that had been deindexed, Google would re-index them right quick. The timing was curious, just when Brad Friedman was exposing more New York Times lies and unwillingness to correct them as well its cozy relationship with racist gadfly Andrew Breitbart, even lying on his behalf. If might just be a coincidence arising out of a Google algorithm change. Or could it be something more nefarious?
Please excuse my spelling errors. “investigative journalims pages” should be “investigative journalism articles“.
Great work, Adam! Thank U!~ Let us know how this unfolds. I’m VERY curious…
Good news: New BradBlog articles are being reindexed by Google News. However, badnews: Most previous articles, including this one, don’t show up anymore. I would suggest publishing more articles about New York Times coziness with gadfly Andrew Breitbart, so they show up in Google News search results. What’s the latest on the story? Did New York Times issue a correction?
Adam –
I’ve been on the road for the past two weeks and off the grid for much of the past week, so no updates — at least on my end — from where we were prior to that.
I’ve not yet heard back again from NYT in follow up to their initial respones that they were looking into it, nor have they issued any further CORRECTIONS on the story to date. I will, of course, be following up with them when I’m fully back on the grid beginning this upcoming week, and will update here if/when there is new news, naturally.
(P.S. I also hope to see if I can figure out some tricks once back, in order to make changes to pages here to work around Google News’ “page too large” restrictions which seem to be new, in case that helps us get properly re-indexed there. May take a few days at best, however, since I’ve got MUCH catching up to do!)