Sunday, April 23, 2006

Bad math at the New York Times 

This is a pretty amazing screw-up.

If you think this error is not a function of the political attitude of most of the NYT's reporters and editors, try to imagine the Times making a mathematical mistake like this that favors the performance of the Bush administration. Sort of like imagining monkeys flying out of your butt.

Via Glenn.


By Blogger John A, at Sun Apr 23, 10:37:00 AM:

The 222 becoming 22, well, a slip of the finger.

But 5 becoming 30? Or 820 becoming 310? Uh, no. I suppose those could have been bad sources - but this is a background article, not breaking news, and those layers upon layers of vetters had plenty of time to check.  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Sun Apr 23, 02:13:00 PM:

I remember back when the NYT was shovelling bad data into the public discourse that supported the decision to go to war in Iraq. One would think that making such repeated favorable factual errors would get them some baseline pro-Bush cred, but I guess it still takes little more than a quickly corrected numbers error to create indignation amongst the W Pep Squad. At least there is one thing Lefties and Righties can agree on, the media is biased against them.  

By Anonymous Purple Avenger, at Sun Apr 23, 02:42:00 PM:

Dan Rather has a job fact checking for the NYT now?  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Sun Apr 23, 04:27:00 PM:

"I remember back when the NYT was shovelling bad data into the public discourse that supported the decision to go to war in Iraq."

I don't remember any of that...  

By Blogger Lou Minatti, at Sun Apr 23, 06:30:00 PM:

Except that it isn't correct:

I have asked John Hinderaker at Powerline to issue a correction but he refuses to do so. You know how libs are deranged when it comes to Bush? Many on the right are deranged when it comes to the NYT.  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Mon Apr 24, 10:03:00 AM:

Quoth Dawnfire, "I don't remember any of that..."

Stories by Judith Miller with Ahmad Chalabi and his organization as sources that told fantastical, damning and utterly fabricated stories included such things as massive undgeround chemical and biological weapons production facilities.

Starting to sound familiar yet? Were it not for the efforts of the NYT, the public would have gotten quite a bit less of the bad data that launched, in what seems to be the opinion of many here, a good war.

And this is the thanks the Times gets?  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?