Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

I asked if ANYONE had questioned the NYT's reports of what some of the people in the revolution had said in interviews.

They are very net-savvy young people so even they, especially since Mubarak left, are quite likely to read the NYT stuff on their revolution online.

Re the NYT, as afew pointed out:

The Angry Arab News Service

Comrade Talal sent me this (I cite with his permission): "I have to say that Tony Shadid made a huge difference to the coverage by the NYT of the recent Arab revolt. At his worst he was good, and at his best outstanding. The other NYT correspondents did not come close, and I am sure he would have been even better if the infamous NYT editors had let him loose."

So - despite the "infamous NYT editors" (a judgement I agree with) - Angry Arab is passing on the word there can at least be some respectable material on the NYT.

I'm sure that Angry Arab will be delighted to know that his own biography doesn't count as evidence of achievement.

I'm sure you'll continue to ignore relevant evidence such as Sharp's bio that doesn't fit your conspiracy theory.

Still - I expect he can console himself with the thought that if he was writing for the NYT you'd believe everything he said, based on its proven expertise, impeccable track record, and convincing contrition when caught lying.

If you don't have any arguments resort to caricature again. No, I don't believe everything that's in the NYT, but then I don't adopt the stupid position of rejecting everything that's in it either. You haven't shown that the NYT has got anything wrong in this case, so again you just caricature what it says.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:42:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that's so funny.  the NYT filters their comments like a Brita water filter.

even if they had read the article in the NYT and disagreed with it, that is assuming they  even exist, are you sure willing to grant the NYT the benefit of the doubt that they would post such comments.


by stevesim on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 02:46:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't say it had to be in the NYT, does your mate Angry Arab or any Egyptian blogger question what they said ?  Anyway of course they do include comments critical of them. If they refuse them people post elsewhere, note that the NYT censored them and they look even worse.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Mon Feb 21st, 2011 at 03:08:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sadly, that logic only applies to outlets that a) are not anointed with institutional credibility by being Serious, and b) have a non-negligible share of readers who might happen across such indictments. Neither is true for NYT.

Which is not to say that they systematically memory-hole comments contradicting their news and views. I really can't say one way or the other. I have never been sufficiently motivated to wade through the crazy in their comments long enough to learn anything interesting about their comment policy.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 22nd, 2011 at 06:58:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series