NYT Ombudsman Blows Up ACORN Conspiracy Theory, Media Matters Hardest Hit

An exhaustive piece today from New York Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt demolishes the absurd claims made by far left outfits such as the Democrat operatives at Media Matters and FAIR, a discredited neo-Communist outfit perhaps with less credibility that ACORN.

Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them. If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes. In Washington, he said the prostitution was to finance his future in politics. A worker for Acorn Housing, an allied group, warned him to stay away from the brothel lest someone “get wind that you got a house and that your girlfriend is over there running a house of women of the night. You will not have a career.”

FAIR said that in Brooklyn, O’Keefe and Giles seemed to be telling Acorn staffers that “they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.” That’s right, but FAIR left out the part about their clear intention to operate a brothel, which the Acorn workers seemed to take in stride, with one warning: “Don’t get caught, ’cause it is against the law.”

The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context. Harshbarger’s report to Acorn found no “pattern of illegal conduct” by its employees. But, he told me: “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.”

He also said the news media should have been far more skeptical, demanding the raw video from which the edited versions were produced. “It’s outrageous that this could have had this effect without being questioned more,” he said.

The report by Harshbarger and Crafts was not covered by The Times. It should have been, but the Acorn/O’Keefe story became something of an orphan at the paper. At least 14 reporters, reporting to different sets of editors, have touched it since last fall. Nobody owns it. Bill Keller, the executive editor, said that, “sensing the story would not go away and would be part of a larger narrative,” the paper should have assigned one reporter to be responsible for it.

It remains a fascinating story. To conservatives, Acorn is virtually a criminal organization that was guilty of extensive voter registration fraud in 2008. To its supporters, Acorn is a community service organization that has helped millions of disadvantaged Americans by organizing to confront powerful institutions like banks and developers.

Harshbarger’s report focused heavily on Acorn’s “longstanding management weaknesses, including lack of training, a lack of procedures and a lack of on-site supervision” that he said provided fertile ground for O’Keefe’s sting. Lewis, who took over less than two years ago, said she has been working aggressively to reform the organization.

The story now is whether she has run out of time.

This kook from Media Matters has been in an on-going feud with Andrew Breitbart, and is still stuck deeply in denial. His reaction to Clark Hoyt cutting the legs out from his narrative?

New York Times finally comes clean about ACORN pimp hoax; http://tinyurl.com/yg6jens

The Times comes clean? No, they just blew you out of the water.

NYT Public Editor: Yes, We're Incompetent

I wonder how much longer Clark Hoyt will be in the employ of the New York Times.

Then again, maybe William Keller should just be fired for sheer incompetence and replaced by Hoyt.

I recommend you read the whole piece, but if you don't have the time, it can all be summarized here:

A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

NYT Public Editor: We're Totally Inept, But Stand By Our Stories Slandering the Troops

The New York Times Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, is in the unenviable position of trying to defend the outrageous series of stories, which continue today, that portray our troops as bloodthirsty, psychopathic killers.

Naturally, he takes a swipe at the New York Post (Ralph Peters demolished the original story here) and conservative bloggers who shredded the initial story for its outrageous portrayal of troops who've been charged with crimes since returning from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. The original piece was immediately taken apart and unwittingly showed those who served in the military were five times less likely to commit felonies than the average citizen.

Now Hoyt continues to compound the error today.

Stories That Speak for Themselves

But The Times made some missteps at the beginning of the series, and critics have pounced, accusing it of demonizing veterans and exaggerating the problem even as some mental health professionals have thanked the newspaper.

Well, Clark, the critics pounced because the story was blatantly misleading.

How difficult is that to understand. If there weren't any missteps, like you say, maybe nobody would have pounced.

Are you really that dense?

The Times was immediately accused — in The New York Post and the conservative blogosphere, and by hundreds of messages to the public editor — of portraying all veterans as unstable killers. It did not.

Really? Then why was there such outrage across the board? He gives it away in the very next sentence.

But, the first article used colorfully inflated language — “trail of death” — for a trend it could not reliably quantify, despite an attempt at statistical analysis using squishy numbers.

So in one breath, Hoyt claims they were not trying to portray the troops as killers, then admits to using colorfully inflated language with squishy numbers.

What else is one to convey from this? That it was a fair and honest portrayal using statistically valid methodology?

Of course not. It was what it was, a vile hit piece beyond the realm of responsible journalism.

Finally, while many of the 121 cases found by The Times appeared clearly linked to wartime stresses, others seemed questionable. One involved a Navy Seabee accused of arranging her ex-husband’s murder during a bitter child custody battle, and another involved a soldier who was acquitted of reckless homicide in a car crash after a jury concluded that his blood alcohol level was below the legal limit and that many other accidents had happened on the same stretch of road.

So other seemed questionable? This begs the question: Where were the editors to vet this story? Apparently, they couldn't be bothered to read the story in advance.

Unreal.

Purdy urged me not to get lost in the numbers as I looked at the first two articles. I agree with that, but I believe The Times tangled itself in numbers right at the start. Bill Keller, the executive editor, said the newsroom’s computer-assisted reporting unit normally screens articles with statistical analyses. Some of the problems might have been avoided if someone in the unit had read the first article before it was published. But Terry Schwadron, the editor who oversees the unit, which created a database for the 121 cases, said that did not happen. “I read the story in the paper, and I shared some concerns” with Purdy, he said.

At the least, Terry Schwadron should be dismissed from his job.

As for Keller, he long ago forfeited any credibility and if the New York Times Board of Directors is content seeing the paper hemorrhage money and readers and still keeps him on, that's their problem.

In the end, Hoyt is reduced to a mealy-mouthed defense.

But the questionable statistics muddy the message. A handful of killings caused by the stresses of war would be too many and cause for action. Sometimes, trying to turn such stories into data — with implications of statistical proof and that old journalistic convention, the trend — harms rather than helps.

Yes, Clark, and that's why today the New York Times has so little credibility.

You folks would be better off scrapping this insulting series now.

Sadly, the two hacks with their bylines on this slander will probably wind up with Pulitzer Prizes.

NY Times: Uh, We Made a Mistake; MoveOn Goons Reimbursing the Difference

Now that they've been caught redhanded, the New York Times says "oops, we made a mistake."

NY Times says discount for Petraeus ad was mistake

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Times said on Sunday it made a mistake in charging a discounted rate for printing a political ad that attacked the top U.S. general in Iraq, angering Republicans and drawing charges the newspaper is politicalky [sic]biased.

Given the mistake, Moveon.org, the liberal anti-war group that purchased the ad on September 10 -- the day Gen. David Petraeus testified to Congress about the war in Iraq -- said on Sunday it was willing to pay the full price.

The word "charges" implies that there is some debate left to be had on the matter. I think the more accurate word would be "proof." Even one of their own editors admits the bias.

The New York Times' public editor Clark Hoyt wrote that in his opinion, not only did the advertiser get a discount it was not entitled to, but the ad violated The Times' own written standards.

The ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, 'We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature,'" he wrote, adding that the phrase "Betray Us" was "a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier."

Hey Hoyt, there is no "appears" about it. You did accept "opinion advertising" that was a "personal attack", with no apology coming from you either. You are nothing but sleazy shills for the anti-American left. You are an embarrassment to the term "journalism" and I eagerly await the day that your shill rag for the left goes bankrupt.

Meanwhile, MoveOn is now forking over the difference in the costs.

MoveOn.org yesterday said it would pony up the full price it should have paid The New York Times for a full-page ad slamming Gen. David Petraeus, a day after the paper admitted giving the left-wing activist group a huge discount.

MoveOn said it would wire $77,083 to the Times today to make up the difference for the ad that called the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq "General Betray Us."

"Now that the Times has revealed this mistake for the first time, and while we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organizations, out of an abundance of caution, we have decided to pay that rate for this ad," said MoveOn director Eli Pariser. "We will, therefore, wire the $77,083 difference to the Times tomorrow."

More from Michelle Malkin.