Deinonychus antirrhopus

Wow, this guy sounds like he's losing it. So he doesn't dispute the information in the article, yet he still has a problem, as he thinks writers in The Times will lie about things in the future because of the fact that one reporter made a general statement. Oh, yes, did I mention the fact that he doesn't dispute the information? He's not making any sense.

As for the "rag" comment, nobody besides blowhards like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity thinks of The Times in that way. There are plenty of rag-like papers out there: The New York Post, The Washington Times, and probably The New York Daily News.

Wow, this guy sounds like he's losing it. So he doesn't dispute the information in the article, yet he still has a problem, as he thinks writers in The Times will lie about things in the future because of the fact that one reporter made a general statement.

No Brian, it is because one report literally made up stories out of whole cloth, stole parts of stories from other reporters, and another reporter did not give credit to some of the people helping him on stories. Not to mention Krugman's dubious use of data in his columns.

Reputations are a fragile thing. Once damaged they can take awhile to repair.

As for the "rag" comment, nobody besides blowhards like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity thinks of The Times in that way. There are plenty of rag-like papers out there: The New York Post, The Washington Times, and probably The New York Daily News.

Then why not include the sources for their claims? Give me a good reason besides, 'cause I said so.'

Brian,

Thanks for your comments.

I believe that general claims about social aggregates should be supported by factual, survey evidence. Most readers, including myself, will accept such statements from New York Times writers as true. But should we? Genearal claims about a group of people are easily biased by our own personal experiences with them; it can come as a shock that our experience doesn't give us an accurate view of the big picture.

It is irrelevant whether or not a writer intends to lie, and for the record, I don't think Mr. Andrews wants to lie, or does lie. An honest reporter like Mr. Andrews will depend on his professional judgement. And that judgement is colored by the most recent interviews and data releases. Mr. Andrews has an excellent ability to dramatize the impact of new data on the business climate, and he carefully outlines the opinions of major analysts and political figures, but that does not mean he can give his own opinion about what most economists think, and pass it off as verified fact.

I actually did dispute the "most economists... job growth" claim, but not to stick it to Mr. Andrews or the Times. Mr. Andrews cites only 1 economist as representative of the majority of economists! His assertion might be true or false, but neither the author, nor any of his readers, can actually know it for a fact.

Brian, your readers would be justified in asking how you know I'm losing it. Similarly Mr. Andrews' readers are justified in asking how he knows what most economists think.

"No Brian, it is because one report literally made up stories out of whole cloth, stole parts of stories from other reporters, and another reporter did not give credit to some of the people helping him on stories. Not to mention Krugman's dubious use of data in his columns."

Exactly what was made up and/or stolen?

"Reputations are a fragile thing. Once damaged they can take awhile to repair."

The Times reputation isn't really damaged.

"Then why not include the sources for their claims? Give me a good reason besides, 'cause I said so.'"

What?

Kevin,

Haven't you considered the fact that Andrews was taking a common idea and simply using one economist to back it up, or that some editor eliminated other names as a matter of space? Unless the claim was really bizarre and/or wrong, and it doesn't appear to be that way, you don't have any reason to be upset.

Additionally, how has Andrews misrepresented or dramatized recent news events?

Exactly what was made up and/or stolen?

You have never heard of Jayson Blair?

The Times reputation isn't really damaged.

I don't consider them as reputable as they once were. I always remember that they promoted (actively) a reporter who was basically an inveterate liar.

What?

The question is obvious Brian. Tell me one reason why such sources should not be included in such articles?

Brian,

You don't actually follow the news much do you? Its astonishing to see you making comments about the credibility of the NYT when you are ignorant of Jayson Blair.

And your pal Krugman wasn't immune, he wrote a column attacking a Bush admin official based on a forged email.

Quote...
"The Times reputation isn't really damaged."

"I don't consider them as reputable as they once were. I always remember that they promoted (actively) a reporter who was basically an inveterate liar."

Though I understand your concerns, holding the reputation of any large organization to such (almost impossibly) high standards seems more than a little extreme.

NO organization of any such size could possibly control every action of every employee every work day of the year. And if they tried, none of us would choose to work for them for very long.

"You have never heard of Jayson Blair?"

I have. See below.

"I don't consider them as reputable as they once were. I always remember that they promoted (actively) a reporter who was basically an inveterate liar."

It's simply absurd to suggest that the actions of one reporter, who was clearly not supported by the lower parts of management and editing, reflects the nature of all those involved in putting out The Times. Of course, if you want a good talking point loosely based on reality, then go right ahead. But anyway, Raines and Boyd are gone, as are Blair and Bragg.

"The question is obvious Brian. Tell me one reason why such sources should not be included in such articles?"

They by all means should be included, but you're forgetting the obvious: sometimes, information is considered to be widely accepted, so it's not necessary to go into detail about sources. For instance, if you were writing an article about the US has a very strong economy even in tougher times, it's not necessary to list many economists because nobody really questions such a statement. (That's not the best example, you get the idea.) If, however, The Times printed that growth was expected to be 45% next quarter, a source would be necessary because a lot of people would question such a claim. (Note that I am consider a source both a person and a publication/organization in this instance.)

"You don't actually follow the news much do you? Its astonishing to see you making comments about the credibility of the NYT when you are ignorant of Jayson Blair."

Oh, you mean the young black journalist who described places he had never been and people he had never met, and other stuff like that? You mean the guy who led to the downfall of Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd, who were replaced by Bill Keller, Jill Abramson, and John Geddes? You mean the guy who caused controversy around the same time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Rick Bragg resigned over using an unlisted contributor, who happened to be a young girl in Florida? You mean the guy who allowed virtually every right-wing critic in the world to pounce upon The Times with no little regard for basic standards of fairness and decency? Nope, I've never heard of him.

Pull your head out of your own ass, to be quite blunt, Ms. Roberts, and stop acting so damn cocky. It's not very becoming.

Now that we've established that I do know about Jayson Blair, I can say that he was an anomoly in what is one of the most respected and influential news organizations on the planet. His kind is gone.

Also Robin, in regards to this - "And your pal Krugman wasn't immune, he wrote a column attacking a Bush admin official based on a forged email" - are you referring to Valerie Plame?

Brian, once again, you demonstrate only that your opinions are based on ignorance. First of all, if the NYT shouldn't be "judged" on one person, then the publisher of the NYT didn't agree with you because he fired the top two editors as a result of the Blair affair.

Secondly, Krugman wrote a column attacking the Bush admin secretary of the army - claiming his involvement in the core of the Enron scandal - based on a completely forged email.

The bottom line is that NYT has demonstrated - on more than one occasion - that it is to be judged incompetent and untrustworthy. And you have demonstrated that you don't have enough knowledge to comment on any of these issues.

"Pull your head out of your own ass, to be quite blunt, Ms. Roberts, and stop acting so damn cocky. It's not very becoming."

Besides demonstrating that you are sexist pig, this comment puts you very high in the "Pot meet Kettle" contest.

"Brian, once again, you demonstrate only that your opinions are based on ignorance. First of all, if the NYT shouldn't be "judged" on one person, then the publisher of the NYT didn't agree with you because he fired the top two editors as a result of the Blair affair."

They were fired because, among other things, they couldn't regain control of the newsroom. The people at The Times were outraged that something like this happened, and rightly so, so they reacted in a way that left Sulzberger no other choice. And I wonder why they were upset? Could it be because the actions of one person threatened to damage their reputations when they had done nothing wrong? Of course!

"Secondly, Krugman wrote a column attacking the Bush admin secretary of the army - claiming his involvement in the core of the Enron scandal - based on a completely forged email."

Ah, that. Yes, that wasn't his finest hour. He should have had better judgement. At least he did the right thing by issuing a correction/explaination.

"The bottom line is that NYT has demonstrated - on more than one occasion - that it is to be judged incompetent and untrustworthy. And you have demonstrated that you don't have enough knowledge to comment on any of these issues."

Nonsense. The Time has its problems, but it's trustworthy. Shouuld we say that The Washington Post isn't trusthworthy because George Will, a conservative commentator, twisted Wesley Clark's words around? Not really. We should go after Will, not The Post.

You can claim that I am ignorant, but it's a very baseless claim.

"Besides demonstrating that you are sexist pig, this comment puts you very high in the "Pot meet Kettle" contest."

Now you're just being ridiculous. How am I sexist? I am not stereotyping you, nor am I being discriminatory. Additionally, how am I cocky?

BottomFeeder,

What can I say, I'm not going to give the NY Times the benefit of the doubt anymore. They don't deserve it anymore. If perhaps they fired Blair early on vs. promoting him it might be different. Throw in what I consider to be at best misleading errors with Paul Krugman, and the other scandal with the other reporter and I'm not going to be giving them the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Does this mean they are always lying. No far from it. The problem is I can't spend all day running around fact checking everything I read at their site. So now I have to figure there is definitely a non-zero probability that the reporter is lying, misleading, making an error...and that non-zero probability has gotten larger.

"If perhaps they fired Blair early on vs. promoting him it might be different."

That was a problem with Raines and Boyd, who, if you recall, are now gone.

Brian wrote to me:

Haven't you considered the fact that Andrews was taking a common idea and simply using one economist to back it up...

Yes, I considered that, however there is no reason to assume that Andrews could have verified the "common idea". And the economist he quotes explains his own models only, and does not cite evidence or views of other economists.

or that some editor eliminated other names as a matter of space?

The article focused solely on an extensive interview/comments by one Goldman Sachs economist. I think it highly unlikely that he had a representative sample of economists lined up, and the editor removed them. Mr. Andrews writes a column every other day; he knows the drill by now.

Unless the claim was really bizarre and/or wrong, and it doesn't appear to be that way, you don't have any reason to be upset.

I'm not upset; I just want statements to be verifiable.

And my point is that neither Andrews nor his readers have a clue whether his statement is correct--regardless of how common he thinks the idea is.

You want me to be able to demonstrate that his statement is wrong before I complain. I am complaining because he makes a claim I can neither prove correct, nor prove wrong, without conducting an enormous survey.

Additionally, how has Andrews misrepresented or dramatized recent news events?

I did not write that he misrepresented or dramatized news. I wrote that he is a good reporter of the news, but that he adds-in unsubstantiated claims about groups of people (most economists, most forecasters) based on personal impressions. Unless he somehow demonstrates that his personal insight is somehow equivalent to an unbiased survey, I think he should stick to what he does best.

Steve said....
"Does this mean they are always lying. No far from it. The problem is I can't spend all day running around fact checking everything I read at their site."

Do you not take, with the proverbial 'grain of salt', *everything* written by the human hand? I certainly do. Ain't none of us perfect, and occasionally we're all a little less perfect than even we might normally be. The NYT has certainly been a little less so of late.

Let me ask you this. Given Rush Limbaugh's recent travails.....does that negate everything he's said in the past? Does it mean he'll not have something worth saying in the future?

"Yes, I considered that, however there is no reason to assume that Andrews could have verified the "common idea". And the economist he quotes explains his own models only, and does not cite evidence or views of other economists."

"The article focused solely on an extensive interview/comments by one Goldman Sachs economist. I think it highly unlikely that he had a representative sample of economists lined up, and the editor removed them. Mr. Andrews writes a column every other day; he knows the drill by now."

"I'm not upset; I just want statements to be verifiable."

You're making a big deal out of nothing.

"You want me to be able to demonstrate that his statement is wrong before I complain. I am complaining because he makes a claim I can neither prove correct, nor prove wrong, without conducting an enormous survey."

Again, you're making a deal out of nothing.

"I did not write that he misrepresented or dramatized news."

Um, yes, you did:
"Mr. Andrews has an excellent ability to dramatize the impact of new data on the business climate..."

"but that he adds-in unsubstantiated claims about groups of people (most economists, most forecasters) based on personal impressions."

Where did he add his personal impression?

Do you not take, with the proverbial 'grain of salt', *everything* written by the human hand? I certainly do. Ain't none of us perfect, and occasionally we're all a little less perfect than even we might normally be. The NYT has certainly been a little less so of late.

No, and nothing I wrote implies this. What I wrote implies I have a lower level of trust in the NY Times. They want to regain it, fine then post their sources.

Further, Kevin's point about current information usually getting the greatest weight is true. Empirically it has been verified. So it is possible the reporter isn't lying (i.e., deliberately being misleading) but is giving too much weight to the newest information.

Let me ask you this. Given Rush Limbaugh's recent travails.....does that negate everything he's said in the past? Does it mean he'll not have something worth saying in the future?

Of course not, but he has lots of moral authority on drug issues.

1) What if Mr. Andrews were to write that most economists belive that Social Security should be abolished, or that most Robber Barons did not rob and were not barons, or that most soccer moms believe all immigration restrictions should be lifted, or that most poor people believe that the poor in the U.S. today are better off than the middle class two generations ago? I'd want proof.

My point is that all these statements require proof. And yes, an accurate accounting of the opinions of economists about the economy are a big deal to me. It might not be a big deal to you. So be it.

2) In full context, it's clear that I used "dramatized" in an approving sense, and you used it in a disapproving sense. However, I will not split hairs with you on the various definitions of dramatize which can mean "to make compelling", or can mean "to present a view in a emotionally charged way".

3) Maybe I haven't made myself clear. Professional economists do not believe the same things as the general public. Mr. Andrews is not a professional economist.

Read this if you want to see some examples, and some reasoning and empirical evidence of disagreement between economists and noneconomists. (It's a long, hard slog).

4) Mr. Andrew's personal opinion is that:

most economists, including those at the Fed and many in the private sector, predict that job growth will remain very modest and that the unemployment rate will remain near 6 percent.

com">security mailboxes

m">security mailboxes

Attorneys Immigration

Immigration Lawyer

Emergency Payday Loans - Emergency Cash