My post calls attention to a third version of the NYT story, which lets us see that the first version was based on a quote from Vinson to the French radio website RFI, which Vinson now disowns. The Times did its own interview with Vinson and seems to have been trying to get the story straight. It doesn't say that RFI misquoted her, only that she disputes the quote and says something else now. Times readers are left to speculate on their own.
Treacher had attacked the NYT: "Your reporter hastily left that inconvenient truth in her story by accident, so you airbrushed it out, without any acknowledgment, to preserve the narrative." But I'd said, "The proper focus is the mind of Sigolène Vinson," so you can see why Treacher would respond: "The proper focus is the truth." He'd already spoken of an "inconvenient truth," and I'd tried to refocus on a process of editing that had happened not at the NYT but in the mind of Sigolène Vinson.
Of course, I believe I'm in pursuit of the truth, so, responding in my comments, I said that "I agree" that "The proper focus is the truth":
And the truth is that there is a third version, described in my post that sheds light on what happened.He said:
You haven't updated your post to talk about it, so how are you following the proper focus?
I don't take orders from you. But as it so happens, I've just added another post about the NYT's "correction."Treacher's new post — which doesn't cite my post— says:
So: If we’re to give the NYT the benefit of the doubt, which they absolutely have not earned, they were just correcting a quote that a French media outlet somehow got completely wrong. And apparently, the NYT just forgot to mention the discrepancy, ask her how she could have been misquoted so thoroughly, or make any note of the edit.Maybe the edit should be noted — I'm not an expert on what the journalistic standard is about unfolding stories on the web — but I don't think the "benefit of the doubt" interpretation is that the NYT was "just correcting a quote that a French media outlet somehow got completely wrong."
In my view, the NYT deserves credit for doing an independent interview with Vinson, and it never asserts that RFI got the quote wrong. The NYT restricts itself to the direct pieces of evidence and withholds speculation about the reason for the discrepancy. It's my speculation that Vinson self-censored (out of fear of terrorists or social pressure from people around her). She was traumatized, and memory is imperfect. It's hard to provide verbatim quotes, and one's effort to produce a quote is complicated by the interpretation you had at the point of hearing it and as you thought about it later.
The discrepancy is about whether she was told to convert to Islam, read the Quran, and cover herself or whether she was told to think about what she's doing and to realize that it's not right. I think the version with more detail is more likely to be true, but it's also possible that she was only told to do what's "right" and she instinctively understood that man's "right" in terms of Islam.
Treacher's new post goes on to say that RFI should be be "furious" that "the biggest newspaper in America" is "accusing them of completely fabricating a key quote in a major story." But the NYT refrains from offering any theory for the discrepancy! If the proper focus is the truth, how on earth can Treacher say that the NYT is "accusing" RFI of "completely fabricating"?
One interpretation of the items of evidence provided by the NYT is that RFI completely fabricated the quote, but the NYT doesn't even suggest that could be the explanation, let alone accuse. You have to put the facts together yourself, and — as I noted in the previous paragraph — the most likely explanation is that poor Ms. Vinson is muddling the story for one reason or another.
Anyway, back to the comments thread in my earlier post, I responded to Treacher's "I don't take orders from you":
If you are dedicated to the truth, why characterize my question as an "order"? I'm not ordering you around, just seeking the truth — according to the "proper focus" — and asking good questions. Why do you portray me as doing something other than that? Do you regard a question as an "order" to answer?Treacher said:
If you don't want to sound like you're ordering people around, stop ordering people around. I don't work for you.I said:
Well, as I said, I just ask what I think are good questions.The proper focus is truth!
But it's interesting that you refer to working for somebody who's not me. You criticize the NYT and you work for The Daily Caller. What should we infer about the orders you're getting from them? You seem awfully concerned about getting "orders"....
Posts
62 comments:
Truth, she ordered!
See. A compromise.
Althouse is right on this. Treacher was overly hasty but in his defense, the NYT only offered an explanation for the changed quote AFTER his original post. It sured looked initially like they were simply airburshing it, which was what he (it turns out, incorrectly) assumed.
He also could have been more charitable toward Althouse for pointing this out, I thought his sneering tone in the comments was offputting.
What if truth is a woman?
"Supposing that Truth is a woman—what then? Is there not ground for suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as they have been dogmatists, have failed to understand women—that the terrible seriousness and clumsy importunity with which they have usually paid their addresses to Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly methods for winning a woman? Certainly she has never allowed herself to be won; and at present every kind of dogma stands with sad and discouraged mien—IF, indeed, it stands at all!"
Treacher's new post goes on to say that RFI should be be "furious" that "the biggest newspaper in America" is "accusing them of completely fabricating a key quote in a major story." But the NYT refrains from offering any theory for the discrepancy! If the proper focus is the truth, how on earth can Treacher say that the NYT is accusing RFI of "completely fabricating"? One interpretation of the items of evidence provided by the NYT is that RFI completely fabricated the quote, but the NYT doesn't even suggest that could be the explanation, let alone accuse.
Isn't this like saying,
"Althouse wrote that she ate an apple on Wednesday. I was with Althouse all day on Wednesday and she only ate bread and drank water."
And then when someone says, "You're calling Althouse a liar!" I come back with, "No I'm not, you're inferring that. I'm merely stating the truth."??
"The proper focus is truth!"
Is that an order? Because if it is an order, I could probably follow it better if you'd stop pointing that gun at my head.
The proper focus is "who cares?".
Why on Earth do we care what these psychotics said to a person they spared? Are we hoping to figure out an explanation for why they murdered a bunch of people?
Nobody likes to be told that they may be wrong. Nobody likes to have a possible mistake they made pointed out to them. It's how you respond under those circumstances that says a lot about your character.
rhhardin said...
What if truth is a woman?
If truth was woman none of this would have come up. The Islamists would have shot all the women first.
Let Truth be the Order of the Day!
Likely it was the witness who changed her story after the fact, rather than the NYT sanitizing it, however, the NYT, on it's own, didn't show the actual Charlie cartoons in the biggest story of the year (unlike the WaPo).
The reason: And obviously don't expect all to agree. But let's not forget the Muslim family in Brooklyn who read us and is offended by any depiction of what he sees as his prophet.
so not offending Muslims on the issue of the Prophet is a direct consideration of the NYT...
so corporately, the NYT is behaving exactly like the French witness...
"Elsewhere, in separate statement to Politico, [NYT Editor] Baquet explained that the New York Times is also trying to avoid offending its Muslim readers: “[L]et's not forget the Muslim family in Brooklyn who read us and is offended by any depiction of what he sees as his prophet.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nyt-exec-editor-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-just-too-offensive-to-print/article/2558408#!
Yes let us now forget them. But f**k the Christian, or Jewish, or conservative or southerner who might be offended by the garabge that the the NYT prints. But the nice family in Brooklyn must not be offended. Or else they will turn not so nice and give Bacqet a 7.62 x 39mm enema.
Treacher, like he accuses the NYT, cannot seem to admit that he was wrong.
Wonder if that is always, or just when corrected by a woman.
"Is that an order?"
Note that even though Treacher said to me "If you don't want to sound like you're ordering people around, stop ordering people around," I didn't say that his "The proper focus is the truth" was ordering me around.
And now that I notice that, I'm still going to refrain from saying that he ordered me around. I won't stretch the truth and say that "The proper focus is the truth" is an order.
It's a declarative statement of an opinion of what the proper focus is.
An order would be in this form: You must focus on the truth. Or: I command you to focus on the truth.
Did you know that part of freedom of speech is the freedom to lie? There was a Supreme Court case about it last year.
And the truth about truth is that most people have values that they put above the truth — like self-protection (perhaps what we see in Vinson) and religious faith (people run with it far beyond any serious ascertainment of its truth and even in the face of obvious discrepancies, such as clear inaccuracy in the sacred text).
Althouse,
please give the Althouse-Treacher thing a rest. It's unbecoming...
I like Treacher a lot, but he jumped the gun a bit with the NYT (though not unreasonably given their provility for white-washing a certain religion), thought the quote in question does have that "too good to check" flavor. Now he needs to climb down as gracefully as he can.
"If you don't want to sound like you're ordering people around, stop ordering people around."
Now, that is close to an order, especially the second clause, "stop ordering people around."
But there's an "if" clause, so I'll interpret it charitably as some advice, inviting me to refrain from ordering people around IF I don't want to sound like I'm ordering people around.
In my view, of course, the "if" clause doesn't apply to me, so even if the second clause is an order, it's not an order directed at me. I am unconcerned with how I "sound," because I have the proper focus: THE TRUTH!!!
I focus on saying what is true, and if you look closely, I think you'll see that I'm scrupulous about framing everything so that I'm only saying what can be said on the evidence that I have, and whenever I find that I've slipped up, I make corrections.
"Likely it was the witness who changed her story after the fact, rather than the NYT sanitizing it, however, the NYT, on it's own, didn't show the actual Charlie cartoons in the biggest story of the year (unlike the WaPo)."
I'm planning to get to that topic.
"Ann Althouse said...
And the truth about truth is that most people have values that they put above the truth — like self-protection (perhaps what we see in Vinson) and religious faith (people run with it far beyond any serious ascertainment of its truth and even in the face of obvious discrepancies, such as clear inaccuracy in the sacred text)."
Hey, you missed one? "Or Political ideology. Like the New York Times.
Weird.
Well, as I said, I just ask what I think are good questions.
That's pretty funny coming from Althouse. How many times have we seen someone ask what they think are good questions and they get told to "Read the Post!", where the exclamation point could be seen as an "order."
Hasn't the Left been saying there is no objective truth for the last 50 years?
"What if truth is a woman?"
Yes — a European woman. La détresse de l'esprit?
Did you know that part of freedom of speech is the freedom to lie? There was a Supreme Court case about it last year.
Is the following off topic if I'm quoting Althouse? I hope not.
There is a rather humorous scene in Breaking Bad where one of the friends of Jesse is selling Meth on a park bench or bus stop bench.
A guy comes up to him and asks to buy meth. Jesse's friend says something like, "Man, I know you're a cop, go away."
The guy asking for meth looks offended and hurt and says, "I just want some meth, I'm not a cop."
They go back and forth for a little bit and finally the guy asking for meth just sits quietly on the bench. Then he comes up with an idea, "What if I swear on the constitution that I'm not a cop? Because, cops can't lie!"
And Jesse's friend, being the moron that he is, thinks this is a great idea.
So the guy swears on the constitution that he's not a cop and then Jesse's friend sells him meth, whereupon he is promptly arrested.
Well, anyway, you don't want to go around shooting women you might have a chance to rape later on, that's just common sense. Or am I veering off topic here?
rhhardin:
“It is hard to be understood, especially when one thinks and lives gangasrotagati [as the Ganges flows] among men who think and live differently—namely, kurmagati [as the tortoise moves], or at best ‘the way frogs walk,’ mandukagati (I obviously do everything to be ‘hard to understand’ myself!)—and one should be cordially grateful for the good will to some subtlety of interpretation. As regards ‘the good friends,’ however, who are always too lazy and think that as friends they have a right to relax, one does well to grant them from the outset some leeway and romping place for misunderstanding: then one can even laugh . . . .”
"I did that," says my memory. "I could not have done that," says my pride, and remains inexorable. Eventually—the memory yields.
These Islamist murderers were enforcing their version of political correctness.
We don't assassinate people with guns, but we do kill their careers and assassinate their characters to enforce our version.
Treacher fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line"!
I'm speaking metaphorically, of course. Or deviously, depending on one's interpretation.
Treacher's new post — which doesn't cite my post— says:
So: If we’re to give the NYT the benefit of the doubt,...
That passage tracks my comment closely enough that it pleases me to think that I inspired it. The "benefit of the doubt" referenced goes to the Times' motivation in changing the story. Did they doctor the quote to make it more accurate? Or to hide an inconvenient fact?
There is a very clear etiquette on revisions to online writing and the Times does not follow that etiquette, so we are left to our own devices to decide whether their act was done in good faith or bad faith. Your fight with Treacher is the result of different choices the 2 of you made, but we should not lose sight of the fact that it's not a role we as readers should have to play at all.
Ann Althouse said...An order would be in this form: You must focus on the truth
So someone saying, I dunno, "the future must not belong to those who slander the Propher of Islam" is correctly understood as an order, then. Noted.
Also, just as an aside, if someone said you should think deeply about why Treacher interpreted your question as an order, would you understand the command to "think deeply" itself as an order?
Treacher can be witheringly funny, but he is also famously thin-skinned. He simply cannot allow anyone to say anything critical about him in a comment section without jumping in to insult the commenter.
Let's see if he can resist in this case.
but he is also famously thin-skinned.
Althouse is famously thin-skinned..
We're all famously thin-skinned. Part of being humans. I blame God. If He wanted us to be thicker skinned, He'd have made us crocodiles. Or rhinos.
"Treacher can be witheringly funny, but he is also famously thin-skinned."
There's also "sudden Althouse."
It's not thin-skinned exactly.
It appears as an out-of-the-blue defense in some thicket where the game is not apparent.
"We're all famously thin-skinned."
Not true.
Women in the workplace are thin-skinned, if you want entertainment.
"Who can understand why two lovers who idolised one another the night before, because of one word misinterpreted, split up, eastward one, west the other, goaded by hate, revenge, love and remorse, and never see each other again, both cloaked in lonely pride. This is a miracle renewed every day and is none the less miraculous for that."
- Lautreamont
"Treacher can be witheringly funny, but he is also famously thin-skinned. He simply cannot allow anyone to say anything critical about him in a comment section without jumping in to insult the commenter."
Please tell me more.
"Please tell me more."
Wrong move.
Or don't. Either way is fine.
Jim Treacher said...
Or don't. Either way is fine.
This Treacher fellow seems pretty self-aware with a good sense of humor--that can be a dangerous combo.
rhhardin said...
"We're all famously thin-skinned."
"Not true."
I disagree. We all have a button somewhere that if you push it you see the truth of the person. There are very few truly self aware people among us.
"There are very few truly self aware people among us."
As a long-married male, I'll just say that's what men have wives for. :)
""The proper focus is the truth.""
And the truth is the Muslims are being loud and honest about what they want. They screamed at people why they killed those journalists. Ft. Hood wasn't treated to "We don't kill women!" It was "Allahu Akbar!" You people called it "workplace violence" to save your narrative. Boko Haram didn't take those sex slaves or raze those towns and kill all of those people because they felt oppressed or wanted to fight western colonialism. They did it because they are barbarians.
This NYT article and the pandering is complete garbage. They are trying to save their narrative and always have been. There is no benefit of doubt here. They ran Abu Ghraib on page 1A longer than they ran 9/11.
The truth is the NYT is hot, festering, disease ridden garbage. They push their narrative and deride those that protect them. If you defend them you get lumped in with them. These people will be in our malls soon and you will be looking to people like me to defend you. The time to pick sides is growing short because Obama and the NYT are doing everything they can to empower these people.
And Treacher is right. neener neener
Did you order the Code Red?
You want me to focus on the truth? You can't handle me focusing on the truth! -CP
No one is supposed to question the conclusions of the owner of this blog. There are plenty of times a commenter asks a very valid question and is very dismissively smacked down.
What I mean to say, in words you lowly folks can understand, is I, Anne, am so smart, that I say, why should I waste my precious time answering your lowly, insignificant question, but please be sure to support this blog by buying stuff through the Amazon portal.
Why does Althouse allow this PresidentMomJeans person to comment on her blog?! It does not reflect well on you Althouse and makes you look like you have no standards for commentary on your blog. This is some ugly personal stuff that doesn't add an iota to the discussion.
LindaH. said...
Why does Althouse allow this PresidentMomJeans person to comment on her blog?!
He serves by a useful purpose, by limning the boundaries of human decency. It is always valuable to know exactly how depraved our fellow humans can become. Death will be a release for him.
I notice that Treacher is not the only one thin skinned around here.
""Treacher can be witheringly funny, but he is also famously thin-skinned." There's also "sudden Althouse." It's not thin-skinned exactly. It appears as an out-of-the-blue defense in some thicket where the game is not apparent."
LOL. You must enjoy being a spectator at this hard-to-see game, you weirdo.
We all have a button somewhere that if you push it you see the truth of the person.
Anacouluthon.
"You must enjoy being a spectator at this hard-to-see game, you weirdo."
I enjoy commenting.
Not quite Roland Garros, but close enough.
http://youtu.be/xgki97QeOmo
"Read the post!"
The mood is imperative;
Maybe we need a "Beer Summit" - why is everyone so cranky? Be like me - get sick and take Nyquil for five days, looking out at snow, sunrises. You'll all feel better - just a suggestion.
I am not a robot emperor
I hope that Treacher, Mme la Hote, et M Meade get to meet some day. This is all getting too meta. (If I were smart and young enough, Wish I could be Treacher's Second at such a gathering.)
A source may feel a need to alter or tweek their original story after the fact - for any number of reasons. The standard for determining whether the original story should be retracted is (or should be) whether the original reporter thinks they may have gotten the quote wrong in some way. In this case, the original quote came from a French Broadcaster that apparently spoke with Ms. Segolene shortly after the event - and I don't believe they have retracted or qualified the story in any way. It seems likely that they believe the original quote was accurate, but that Ms. Segolene decided to walk it back for reasons of her own.
I'm no fan of the NYT, but I really can't see that they did anything wrong in this particular instance.
Also, I've never heard of Treacher, but I'm impressed that a man can get his foot so far into his mouth with his head so far up his ass.
Professors have a habit of turning every encounter into a classroom where, in the end, they get to grade the students. When the "students" don't play they get petulant. Ann excels at petulance, it's worked so well for her.
Since in my experience the press is rarely correct, why should we assume that either source is quoting the woman correctly? Ann's defense of the Times is nonsense unless she was personally at the scene when the attack took place and has a recording of the conversation since I would not trust Ann's recitation of the conversation either.
The NYT doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. They have too long a history of stealth editing and refusing to clarify. They also have a history of errors which they refuse to correct, or correct in an untimely way.
In this case, they already lost credibility with the stealth edit, so they can't really be trusted with this story. It is a very strange quote to change both from an editorial perspective and the perspective of the victim.
And you have to ask yourself what actually makes more sense? That the Times somehow magically got the quote correct before they interviewed the victim? Follow this logic. The Times quotes RFI then edits the quote to make it not quite so Islamocentric. They are called out and only then do they interview the victim who (according to them) (amazingly!) says their stealth edit was correct. So either they are whitewashing their lie, or they are psychic.
"Also, I've never heard of Treacher, but I'm impressed that a man can get his foot so far into his mouth with his head so far up his ass."
Hi!
"Treacher, like he accuses the NYT, cannot seem to admit that he was wrong."
I would, were I.
Post a Comment