The New York Times on Friday released the findings of its internal investigation into star reporter Rukmini Callimachi’s reporting on ISIS and extremism in the Middle East.... Callimachi came under intense scrutiny after the main subject of her Peabody award-winning podcast, titled Caliphate, was charged in Canada earlier this year with making up a terrorism hoax in which he claimed to have joined ISIS in Syria and have been a part of its brutal police force. Law-enforcement officials said that, in reality, Shehroze Chaudhry, better known by his alias Abu Huzayfah, lied about his exploits to the media, and had actually never traveled to Syria. His arrest immediately sparked questions at the Times, which through Callimachi’s reporting had leaned heavily on Chaudhry’s allegedly fabricated story.
ADDED: NPR has good detail:
"We fell in love with the fact that we had gotten a member of ISIS who would describe his life in the caliphate and would describe his crimes," New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet tells NPR in an interview on Thursday. "I think we were so in love with it that when when we saw evidence that maybe he was a fabulist, when we saw evidence that he was making some of it up, we didn't listen hard enough." ...
A separate internal review of Caliphate's reporting process was led by senior investigative editor Dean Murphy. He found that Callimachi and her editors repeatedly failed to push hard enough to verify Chaudhry's claims, Baquet tells NPR. "They came back and said, 'If you look at the guy's story, there is not enough powerful evidence that he was who he claimed to be for us to justify that story," Baquet says.
In the interview with NPR lasting nearly an hour, Baquet says the Times did not have evidence Chaudhry had ever been to Syria. Nor could it show he had joined ISIS, much less kill civilians for the group. The man's account proved to be riddled with holes and contradictions. Even when confronting some of them, the reporting and producing team sought ways to show his story could still turn out to be true. Baquet says top editors long accustomed to editing complex written investigative pieces were deferential to an ambitious audio investigative team presenting a compelling narrative yarn.
He says he shares in that blame. "I thought we produced another, you know, 'Holy damn!' story," Baquet recalled. "I was really proud of it. Another big story to embrace and applaud."...
Baquet declines to say whether other Times journalists would receive reprimands or be reassigned as a result of the internal review. He says he would work with Callimachi to determine a fresh assignment, praising her recent investigation on the police shooting of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Ky.
"I do not see how Rukmini could go back to covering terrorism after one of the highest profile stories of terrorism is getting knocked down in this way," Baquet says....
90 comments:
The NYT is less reliable (w/rt facts and truth) than The Babylon Bee.
So naturally all Lefties prefer the NYT.
Blog-able bull shit is the best kind of bull shit.
This is the best kind of scoop, the two scoop kind of scoop. Two bullshit stories for the price of one!
Manufacturing news was always where the money was anyway. The gift that keeps on giving.
Now they need to do the Russia Hoax. And, and, and, and....
The entire NYT is one big fucking fraud.
The Press is the Enemy of the People.
You can't cheat an honest man.
When are people going to believe what the leftist tell you?
Reporters know literally nothing.
As reported by Ben Rhodes
"Star reporter." Heh.
I'm surprised he didn't sell them on ISIS being a progressive savior helping the poor oppressed victims of American militaristic hegemony with free food medicine and housing.
Dear NYT:
The Dems stole the election from Trump. The Bidens are criminals. So are the Clintons. The 1619 Project is one big lie. CAGW is a scam. The FBI is corrupt.
You ought to look into the above and correct the record. There's news to print.
/s/
David D. Begley
Deplorable and Creighton University alum
Omaha, Flyover Nebraska
It's way too late for the NYT to apologize about shoddy reporting. Shoddy reporting, Bull shit stories and partisan politics ruined the NYT brand sometime ago.
I'm surprised he didn't sell them on ISIS being a progressive savior helping the poor oppressed victims of American militaristic hegemony with free food medicine and housing.
Exactly. If he had, the Times probably wouldn't have admitted to the error.
“... [the Times] didn’t properly scrutinize the claims ....”
As soon as Trump is out of the picture, the Times will publish a similar admission about everything it published between 2016 and 2020 except for recipes and the crossword.
No one has a bullshit filter anymore, especially when they want to believe what they are hearing.
This is one of those life affirming uplifting stories that Ann's volunteer cadre of ersatz copywriters love to wake up to.
I guess he was the most cleverist of diabolical criminal masterminds in order to have gotten his "tall tales" past all those layer and layers of fact checkers!
All those fact checkers, so little checking.
Some facts are just too good to check.
Howard bitches about the revelation of lies that he had preferred to believe.
Biden says Howard should believe his own truth over facts.
Howard abides.
Hardly the first time the NYT has fallen for a hoax.
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...
No one has a bullshit filter anymore, especially when they want to believe what they are hearing.
No, I think they still do. They're just not allowed to use it because racism.
...the main subject of her Peabody award-winning podcast, titled Caliphate...
At this point, the NYT needs to have a display case for all the "journalism" awards its writers receive for the baseless hoaxes they publish.
Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post
For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)
Staff members from The New York Times and The Washington Post (from left: Maggie Haberman, Jo Becker, Matt Apuzzo, Rosalind Helderman, Tom Hamburger, Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous, Greg Miller and Mark Mazetti) accept the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting from Columbia University President Lee Bollinger.
So, Canada has some kind of "Stolen Valor" criminal statue to protect the honor of real ISIS terrorists?
It's the New York Times, Ann!
Blogger Howard said...
I'm surprised he didn't sell them on ISIS being a progressive savior helping the poor oppressed victims of American militaristic hegemony with free food medicine and housing.
That was one of your party's Senators. Maybe Patty Murray, still the champ for dumbest Senator. Could have been Boxer who had retired the Dumbest Congressperson Award.
"On 2 occasions by phone, starting on Aug. 22nd, Rukmini threatened to publish a detailed torture story if I did not comply with her interview request,” Michael Foley said in a letter to Kahn in 2015."
Sounds like a lovely person.
Fact checking real world events is difficult. "Fact checking" deviations from left wing political orthodoxy is easy. Is there any surprise the third rate intellects in the media can only accomplish the latter?
Now do the Steele dossier.
As soon as Trump is out of the picture, the Times will publish a similar admission about everything it published between 2016 and 2020 except for recipes and the crossword.
I think our host has serious questions about the crossword and another word game.
Surprise!!! The NYT's is trash. But...let's keep reading it and pretend it's not. Must be worth the $1 per week.
The Best and The Brightest
I flyover the NYT and so should you.
The Best and The Brightest
Security Researcher Reveals Solarwinds' Update Server Was 'Secured' With The Password 'solarwinds123'
NPR: NYT publishes false information.
NPR ought to stick to reporting news.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh, the pooooooooooooooooor NYT, falling for it. Crocodile tears, galore!
Hey, at least Rukmini had one direct source - that's more than virtually every Times story covering Trump/Russia...
The NYT knew exactly what it was doing, as did the reporter. Who is safer to interview and publicize, an honest to Allah terrorist, or a cosplaying faux fanboy? One might kill you because you're female and dare walk around without a burqa. The other might take you to neat restaurants.
The FBI catches terrorists all the time - usually after grooming them from useful idiots into potential criminals, who find out the "bomb" is just Playdoh only after the arrest. The NYT has watched, and learned, this technique of safely getting "bad guys" for your own uses.
Gusty Winds said...
Surprise!!! The NYT's is trash. But...let's keep reading it and pretend it's not. Must be worth the $1 per week.
12/18/20, 9:06 AM
$1 per week? There is no friggen way I would subject my self to that for $1 a week, they would have to pay me a whole LOT more!
Philadelphia Inquirer news story described Trump's actions in PA "brazen and baseless attempt to overturn an election".
The following day, the same reporter wrote a story about ticket splitting and the story's graph indicated, in the Bucks County congressional race, slightly more votes were cast in the congressional race than in the presidential race. I find that hard to believe. Meaning 800 people voted in the Congress critter race but did not cast a vote for either Prez candidate?
A lack of innate curiosity makes for a shitty reporter.
“For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes”
That wisdom was written 400 years ago by a Francis Bacon. The man had a handle on the subjunctive mood — something we’ve sadly lost over the years.
Link
This story is why my family breaks out in hysterical laughter when someone on TV or radio mentions they got a "journalist award".
This shit is as easy to check as is 'Biden won the election.'
But they don't bother because they don't want to know.
It's a 'narrative' that fits into the lefty world-view.
Fuck the NYT, and fuck Canada (h/t Parker and Stone).
: )
A lack of innate curiosity makes for a shitty reporter.
Chickelit @10:18, I suspect that all of the thinkers of the Renaissance were intellectually superior to any we have today. Whether due to poor education policies or too many distractions, we have become a nation [and world] of comparative morons.
This story is why my family breaks out in hysterical laughter when someone on TV or radio mentions they got a "journalist award".
You mean like the new Dan Rather Award? (not the Babylon Bee).
The only reason this came out was because some journalists resented Callimachi’s new found celebrity.
Heads never seem to roll in Newsrooms anymore, unless they're in made-up stories published willingly.
I'm confused, though. The man is criminally charged by the Canadian government for lying about crimes in another country which he did not actually commit? I do not understand the Canadian justice system at all, then. Or US media is making no real effort to explain what is actually happening with the Canadian charges.
"Or US media is making no real effort to explain what is actually happening with the Canadian charges."
You will get no unflattering news about the media or democrats (I know, no difference) by reading U.S. sources.
You have to read British or Australian media or sites.
They always have the only reporting on stories that affect democrats.
The U.S. media is no longer independent and is merely an arm of the Democrat/woke establishment.
Howard said...
You can't cheat an honest man.
************
Yeah, Howard. All those government agencies like the SEC, Consumer Protection and the like should close up shop, because the people being cheated by "pump and dump" operators and fake advertising, being dishonest, DESERVE IT.
Once again you've demonstrated that your ass is genius.
The problem with using the New York Times to line a birdcage is that it's covered in shit before you put it in.
And here I thought that the suspension of disbelief was for movie viewing. Does anyone in any newsroom believe in objective truth?
Nothing to see here, just another fake-but-accurate exercise. Looks like the NYT and its reporter should be a lock to receive the first-ever Dan Rather Award from the UT School of Journalism. No doubt it will look shiny and nice on the shelf next to the Pulitzer for the Russian collusion stories that were all the rage a while back.
This is a real PR coup for the Times! If they're willing to admit this story was faked, imagine how much more true all those stories they're standing by must be for them to stand by them!
Reliable journalism!
Heads never seem to roll in Newsrooms anymore
Ask James Bennett after publishing Tom Cotton’s op-ed. So there really are fireable offenses — like allowing Republicans a public platform.
All the news that's fit to fabricate.
I think that's how most fake news gets put into circulation, whether it's Dan Rather's fake memo about Bush II's military record, Rolling Stones' fake article about "Haven Monaghan" orchestrating a fraternity gang rape, the Steele Dossier, any number of fake hate crime stories, or this. The journalists usually don't actually make stuff up -- the Stephen Glass/Jayson Blair scenario is the exception, not the rule. Rather, it's that journalists regularly fail to exercise appropriate skepticism when presented with a story they really want to tell. And they're happy to cooperate with untrustworthy sources who will tell them the lies they want to hear.
Wholelottasplooging: the comment implied that the NYT reporter was dishonest.
Since you mentioned it, yes... pump and dump victims are greedy. They fall for the get rich quick something for nothing con.
You don't like the analogy because deep in your lizard brain, you know it also applies to you Trump con victims.
"Besides being a Pulitzer finalist as a single nominee in 2009 and 2014 [for the Caliphate podcast] and as part of a group entry in 2016, her work on al-Qaeda and ISIS has been recognized by the George Polk Awards, the Michael Kelly Award for the Fearless Pursuit and Expression of Truth and the Sigma Delta Chi Award. She is also the only journalist in the 75-year-history of the Overseas Press Club to win both of the club’s top two reporting awards the same year."
- The Pulitzer Prize Board
Rukmini is the best.
"The journalists usually don't actually make stuff up..."
Then how do you explain all the 'anonymous sources,' or 'a high-ranking official said.'
That's all fabrication. There are no sources.
Me? If I were Trump and knew the reporting to be false, I'd jail the bastards and let them stew in their own filth for a bit until a lefty judge lets them out.
"Heads never seem to roll in Newsrooms anymore"
Daniel Pearl unavailable for comment.
I keep reading about the "Trump con" but the results were policies and outcomes that I preferred and enjoyed.
Somebody doesn't understand what a con is.
"Layers of editors and fact checkers"
"Trust the experts"
"We need social media and the press to 'weed out disinformation'"
I'm going to really enjoy watching these scum bags go bankrupt
Balfegor said...
The journalists usually don't actually make stuff up
Yes, they do. Every time they tell you they have an anonymous republican source / source close to Trump / etc they are flat out lying.
The polls were made up BS.
They are liars. And you you believe anything they say about anything where you can't check the primary documents for yourself, your'e a fool
So the Times did a major public correction of its story.
And NPR did an interesting, unflinching story on the Times’ error.
I find all of that refreshing, informative, and worthy of my time. Unlike the degrading garbage propaganda I would have gotten if I had wasted that time with Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Breitbart, Newsmax or OAN.
Remember that it was either the NYT or the WaPoo that ran an entire series of some fabricated story. I think the female writer even got some kind of award before she was found out. IIRC, it was about some drug addicted teen or something like that.
Re:Joe Smith and Greg the Class Traitor:
On the contrary, I expect it's easy for journalists to find "Republican" or "administration" sources who are all too happy to use the press to launder lies. We know who "Anonymous" (the supposed high official who bragged in the New York Times about undermining the elected government of the US) is, for example. He was a real person, if untrustworthy. I'm sure he was happy to lie to reporters off the record, and I'm sure there were other bureaucrats like him, equally happy to do the same. There really were a lot of people who hated Trump filling Trump's administration -- an unfortunate but foreseeable consequence of his being a true outsider who upended the longstanding policy consensus of both his party and the civil service itself.
Yes, Chuck. Their public correction makes it look as if it's an anomaly when we all know better. Geez, you are dense.
We don't see any polls about public confidence in the news media these days, do we?
12/18/20, 2:44 PM
Blogger mockturtle said...
Yes, Chuck. Their public correction makes it look as if it's an anomaly when we all know better. Geez, you are dense.
What a shitty, lost, low-grade existence it must be, to disregard everything from the Times. I don’t accept everything from them on faith; I don’t do that with any news source. Not the Times, not the Journal, not NPR, not MSNBC, not Fox News. And I sure as hell don’t automatically accept the shit from a Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, or the countless nameless right-wing blogs spewing Trumpist propaganda.
I take all stories individually, on their merit. Trying to pay attention to specific names, bylines, editors, etc. I let journalists from all sides earn, or lose, my trust. Based on their work. When I know that I am arguing with someone who won’t accept anything that had been published in NYT or WaPo, or who ridicules NPR, I know that I’ll win the argument. And certainly not because those news organizations are faultlessly perfect. But rather because I know that regardless of the position or subject of argument, I will know more than my adversary.
After all the times big media got swindled recently, or more properly, tried to swindle the rest of us you would think they’d learn something. Or we would.
Bob Smith said...
After all the times big media got swindled recently, or more properly, tried to swindle the rest of us you would think they’d learn something. Or we would.
12/18/20, 3:12 PM
Well some of us have, maybe the majority on this blog at least.
I would not trust the media to tell me if the sun was to come up tomorrow.
From September 30 2020
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx
(Note: somehow I put this comment on the wrong post so I am copying here)
Re: Chuck:
I think there is a big credibility gap between the Washington Post and the New York Times, and WaPo doesn't deserve to be put in the same category as NYT. WaPo, for example, realised the media as a whole had uncritically relayed a pack of lies about the Trump-Russia "collusion" conspiracy theory, and did a series dissecting how they fell for it. NYT has never shown the same degree of self-reflection. WaPo has never run pure propaganda like the 1619 project. WaPo has as far as I know never allowed its journalists to get an editor fired for the thoughtcrime of publishing a Republican. Going back years, employees and managers at NYT have deliberately used their platform for activist causes.
This isn't a Trump thing -- see, e.g. Howell Raines' nutso crusade against the Augusta National golf club. WaPo has never, to my knowledge, been so deliberate and calculated in slanting its coverage for activist purposes.
I consider the Washington Post markedly superior, as a news organisation, to the New York Times. Doesn't mean they won't publish falsehoods, but I trust their leadership to try and get things right in a way that, frankly, I just don't trust the leadership of the New York Times.
Chuck said:
"And I sure as hell don’t automatically accept the shit from a Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, or the countless nameless right-wing blogs spewing Trumpist propaganda.
I take all stories individually, on their merit. Trying to pay attention to specific names, bylines, editors, etc. I let journalists from all sides earn, or lose, my trust. Based on their work. When I know that I am arguing with someone who won’t accept anything that had been published in NYT or WaPo, or who ridicules NPR, I know that I’ll win the argument."
*************************
Myself, when I know that I am arguing with someone who won’t accept anything that had been said by Trump, Hannity, Levin or who ridicules Newsmax, I know that I’ll win the argument.
See how easy it is to play your stupid game?
None of the Trumpists can explain "big media," other than anything that is pro=Trump is good, and everything else is bad.
Is NPR "big media"? In the blog post, Atlhouse -- wittingly or unwittlingly -- casts NPR in the position of doing a corrective on NYT.
Is Fox News "big media"? Of course it is. All the time. For Trumpists, however, Chris Wallace's Fox is the real "big media" while Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity's hours on Fox are not "big media."
Is Rush Limbaugh (talk radio's top-rated program, making Limbaugh a personal media mogul) "big media"?
The Trumpist fuckheads can't even define their own terms. Other than in terms that coincide perfectly with a Trump Personality Cult. Whatever supports Trump is True. Whatever criticizes Trump is Fake. We're laughing at you. We do loathe you, but in the backwash of the Trump Era, with a powerless Trump heading for criminal indictments, we are laughing mostly.
Chuck said...
None of the Trumpists can explain "big media," other than anything that is pro=Trump is good, and everything else is bad.
*************
Apparently it has escaped Chuck's notice that we conservatives generally speak not of "big media", but of "the Mainstream Media", and we goddamn well know who we are referring to.
I hear all kinds of catchphrases from conservatives and phony conservatives about the media.
"Drive-by media." (Limbaugh)
"Institutional media." (Hosts on the Detroit clear channel superstation that hosts Limbaugh.)
"Liberal media." (Is the Fox News Channel liberal? Is the Wall Street Journal liberal? Is National Review liberal? Is The Bulwark liberal? None of them are meeting the needs of the Trumpists right now.)
"Mainstream media." Is this one just self-defining? It's just a matter of how pro-Trump something is, on a day-to-day basis. (See "liberal media" above.)
How many other "media" monikers are there? There are as many, I say, as there are substitute hosts for Rush Limbaugh. I hear a new one almost every week.
You fucked up. You trusted us.
Balfegor said...
Re:Joe Smith and Greg the Class Traitor:
On the contrary, I expect it's easy for journalists to find "Republican" or "administration" sources who are all too happy to use the press to launder lies. We know who "Anonymous" (the supposed high official who bragged in the New York Times about undermining the elected government of the US) is, for example. He was a real person, if untrustworthy.
You've got that wrong. Yes, they had an "anonymous" who was telling them lies. But they lied and claimed "anonymous" was a senior Administration official, when he wasn't.
They were not mistake. They were not played. They knowingly, willingly, eagerly lied to their readers about who "anonymous" was.
When they say "an anonymous source close to Trump" they are lying. The person is not in fact close to Trump. When they say "a republican who has been fully briefed on what the republicans will be doing", they are lying.
Which is why their stories consistently turn out to be wrong.
Here's the reality check:
If an anonymous source lies to you, that source has forfeited his or her anonymity. So, it's VERY EASY to tell when someone lied to the press:
It's the case where the follow up story says "on Friday we published a story where an anonymous source claimed X. It turned out that Joe Blow, or source, was lying to us. Which is why we're now revealing who he is."
If you don't see that article, it's because the writer was lying to you, not the "anonymous source".
@Balfegor
You are far too trusting.
In the case of 'Anonymous,' the op-ed didn't write itself.
I am speaking of so-called sources.
While I'm sure there are some that hate Trump, I maintain that many are phantoms that lefty 'journalists' use to frame an anti-Trump screed.
"Support independent journalism today.
"You rely on NPR to stay informed and we depend on you to make our work possible. Give to your local NPR station today." Says the popup beggar.
Is NPR now trying to position itself as an "alternate" media, as if it's somehow independent of the groupthink that has so thoroughly infected the rest of the mainstream?
When was the last time you heard or saw anything that was in any way "independent" at NPR??
"Support independent journalism today.
"You rely on NPR to stay informed and we depend on you to make our work possible. Give to your local NPR station today." Says the popup beggar.
Is NPR now trying to position itself as an "alternate" media, as if it's somehow independent of the groupthink that has so thoroughly infected the rest of the mainstream?
When was the last time you heard or saw anything that was in any way "independent" at NPR??
Chuck said:
How many other "media" monikers are there? There are as many, I say, as there are substitute hosts for Rush Limbaugh. I hear a new one almost every week.
*****************
It takes a genuine piece of shit to mock a man undergoing chemotherapy.
FOAD, Chuck.
I feel about the NYT the way I would feel if I learned that the sweet freshman girl I loved in college grew up to become a whore.
Blogger wholelottasplainin' said...
Chuck said:
“How many other ‘media’ monikers are there? There are as many, I say, as there are substitute hosts for Rush Limbaugh. I hear a new one almost every week.”
*****************
It takes a genuine piece of shit to mock a man undergoing chemotherapy.
FOAD, Chuck.
What I describe — the blizzard of “liberal media” nickname/epithets — predates Limbaugh’s cancer diagnosis. And Limbaugh hasn’t changed his tune since his diagnosis. So there’s absolutely no need for anyone else to change theirs. Limbaugh’s still fighting his rearguard actions against the Republican Party leadership as he always has, and basically serving just one “conservative” cause, which is his own Share, Cume and TSL.
"I feel about the NYT the way I would feel if I learned that the sweet freshman girl I loved in college grew up to become a whore."
Maybe she was already a whore in college.
Like the NYT was always a progressive rag.
Now all The Old Grey Mare needs to do is admit they fell for the Russia collusion hoax, and the fine people hoax, and the no-fraud hoax, and they will have respect again. Right?
Post a Comment