Worthington Spins, Old Grey Hag Silent

We noted Friday the absurd decision by the New York Times to give a byline to a vociferous far-left critic of U.S. policy, in particular, keeping enemy combatants captive at Guantanamo Bay.

The New York Post today follows up their initial report with a editorial chiding the Times for their utter disregard for any modicum of journalistic ethics.

The New York Times was forced to issue a mea culpa Thursday on the latest in its seemingly never-ending stream of "exposés" from the American terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The problem: British freelancer Andy Worthington, one of the article's co-authors, turned out to be something short of an "objective" reporter.

As the Times admitted, he is in fact a fierce advocate for the closing of the Guantanamo facility; his recent book, "The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison," describes it as "a cruel and misguided response by the Bush administration to the 9/11 attacks," said the paper.

The Times, which claimed that it somehow didn't know about Worthington's "outspoken" position until after the article ran, also admitted that it should've described Worthington's contributions to the story and made his views known, instead of simply running his byline.

The Times says that it verified his information - and by all appearances it continues to stand behind the story, which deals with detainee Abdul Razzaq Hekmati, who was arrested in Afghanistan in 2003 and died of cancer at Gitmo in December.

Read the rest.

In the meantime, Worthington himself is spinning for all he's worth, and using some rather dubious sources in an attempt to buttress his case.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) posted the following news articles based on the Editor’s Note and Scott Horton’s article: (links here and here)

War In Context had this to say: (link)

And this from After Downing Street: (link)

This is Daily Kos’ take on the story: (link)

And this from at-Largely: (link)

Best of Both Worlds: (link)

FAIR, a Marxist front group founded by a former ACLU lawyer, isn't exactly an objective source. These boobs think the Times using one of their own reporters for war coverage isn't justified, but using Worthington on a dubious story is.

Another source Worthington offers is After Downing Street. Just check these folks out and you know what planet they live on. They still think Bush and Cheney are going to be impeached.

Daily Kos?

Please.

I will give Worthington props for finding one reliable source, however.

For a different point of view, see: (link)

I really like that last one.

UPDATE: LGF links. Thanks!

Thanks also to Memeorandum and Kathleen McKinley at NewsBusters for the link.