New York Times: "Don't trust our editorials"

[Childlike Empress]

Says it all:

As the New York Times now admits one can not trust anything written in a New York Times editorial. (Are the news-pages any better?)

April 16, 2009 - Editorial: Roxana Saberi

Iran’s government needs to release Ms. Saberi and end this dangerous farce.
...
A former F.B.I. agent who went missing in 2007 while on a business trip, Robert Levinson, is also believed to be imprisoned.​

September 18, 2009 Editorial: Iran’s Captives

[Iran] must free Robert Levinson, a former F.B.I. agent missing since 2007.​

October 23 2009 - Editorial: More Iranian Injustice

... Robert Levinson, a former F.B.I. agent has been missing since 2007. These victims of Iran’s autocratic leaders must be released.​

November 11 2009 - Cruel, Pointless Games

Tehran’s latest outrage is to accuse three American hikers, held for more than three months, of spying.
...
Robert Levinson, a former F.B.I. agent who traveled to Iran on a business trip, has been missing since 2007.​

Now we learn: A Disappearing Spy, and a Scandal at the C.I.A.

The New York Times has known about the former agent’s C.I.A. ties since late 2007, when a lawyer for the family gave a reporter access to Mr. Levinson’s files and emails.​

 

[C_Felix]

I must be unable to connect the dots.


Plus, aren't editorials basically opinion pieces?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I must be unable to connect the dots.


Plus, aren't editorials basically opinion pieces?

That's what I thought.
???

 

[Mike!]

I must be unable to connect the dots.


Plus, aren't editorials basically opinion pieces?

And opinions are just like, um, something everyone has... and no one really wants to hear from.

Except maybe, when around a campfire in a Mel Brooks movie.

 

[hgc]

I must be unable to connect the dots.

Plus, aren't editorials basically opinion pieces?

Nonetheless, when a newspaper prints factual information (he was traveling on business) in an editorial that turns out the editors knew was factually incorrect, that's considered a bad thing.

Now, one can play word games, and say that his business was spying, but that's just silly. One could also note that he was in Iran on non-CIA business, and his CIA connections were irrelevant to his trip there, but I have no idea if that's the case.

So, to recap: newspaper editorials are where the newspaper's editorial board prints its opinion. Factual claims therein are not considered opinion (at least by me).

 

[Polaris]

IOW, trust PressTV, amiright?

 

[Iamme]

Mark Levin calls them the New York Slimes.

 

[WildCat]

IOW, trust PressTV, amiright?

Of course, you can 100% trust a rag written by raging anti-semites to push a government's political agenda.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I must be unable to connect the dots.


Plus, aren't editorials basically opinion pieces?

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, none are entitled to their own facts. If you didn't assume that the factchecking department of the NYT would take care that the opinions published in those editorials aren't based on knowingly factually incorrect information, then there's nothing to see here.

 

[Puppycow]

I think the sentence that follows is important for context:

The New York Times has known about the former agent’s C.I.A. ties since late 2007, when a lawyer for the family gave a reporter access to Mr. Levinson’s files and emails. The Times withheld that information to avoid jeopardizing his safety or the efforts to free him.

 

[Virus]

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, none are entitled to their own facts. If you didn't assume that the factchecking department of the NYT would take care that the opinions published in those editorials aren't based on knowingly factually incorrect information, then there's nothing to see here.

You quote PressTV and other garbage that knowingly write factually incorrect information.

For instance, did PressTV not know that David Duke was a neo-nazi, KKK leader and Holocaust denier when they had him on as an "expert"?

 

[Childlike Empress]

I think the sentence that follows is important for context:

Really? What about those preceding?

Since his disappearance in March 2007, United States officials have publicly insisted that Mr. Levinson went to Iran as a private investigator working a cigarette smuggling case. In fact he was also a contractor for the C.I.A. As the real purpose of his mission became known within the government [in 2007 - CE], it led to a scandal within the C.I.A. in which three agency officials lost their jobs, for, in effect, using Mr. Levinson as part of an unauthorized spying operation.

 

[daredelvis]

Judith Miller.

That is all.

Daredelvis

 

[marplots]

Well, as long as the editorial cartoon is still sacrosanct...

 

[Virus]

If I'm reading this right, she's outraged the NYT didn't out an intelligence asset and put his life at risk because she supports the stupid, insane country he was operating in?

Is it something like that?

 

[Puppycow]

If I'm reading this right, she's outraged the NYT didn't out an intelligence asset and put his life at risk because she supports the stupid, insane country he was operating in?

Is it something like that?

That appears to be the case.

If something like this unfortunately happens, there is a valid reason for the government and even the press to lie about it. The AP seems to have published anyway despite a request from the government that they not do it for his safety. Maybe they already knew and so it didn't really matter anyway. Levinson himself may have told them or they may have figured it out another way. Maybe they knew from the beginning. Yes - shock! - we spy on Iran, as they try to spy on us too.

 

[Cain]

Or the NY Times' treatment of super-"spy" Wen Ho Lee.

My favorite editorial is the one from the early aughts that supported the coup against Hugo Chavez. They said he should "respect Constitutional procedures." Later they came out with an apology, something like "We dropped the ball!" Therein lies the difference between their support for empire and crazy conservatives: the NYT will occasionally say they're sorry, which obviously makes them anti-American liberal pussies.

 

[manofthesea]

"If you get caught we don't know you." I thought countries generally conduct 'spy swaps' after an episode like this.

The fact that the family of the missing person was paid a substantial sum does indicate some finality to this issue.

 

[hgc]

If I'm reading this right, she's outraged the NYT didn't out an intelligence asset and put his life at risk because she supports the stupid, insane country he was operating in?

Is it something like that?

From my point of view, there was a possible middle ground between the NY Times revealing information that might have put Levinson at risk and flat-out lying to their readers.

 

[Robrob]

If I'm reading this right, she's outraged the NYT didn't out an intelligence asset and put his life at risk because she supports the stupid, insane country he was operating in?

Is it something like that?

That and she's confused the NYT doesn't have powers of telepathy or precognition. Given his status was only confirmed this week - four years after her quoted editorials.