Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "List of The New York Times controversies" in English language version.
In fairness, I'll emphasize that the story's seventh mistake was the result of an editing error. But six errors in a story she had ample time to work on and check is not acceptable, especially for a reporter with such a troubling history of error. ...
This study explores the biases, pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, by looking at quantitative indicators of news coverage in The New York Times and Ha'aretz. Several time periods were examined (1987–88, 2000–01, and post-September 11, 2001), using multiple indicators. By these measures, The New York Times is more favorable toward the Israelis than the Palestinians, and the partiality has become more pronounced with time.
Wasn't the public fascinated, after all, to learn that Stanley and the nation's Paper of Record managed eight mistakes in an almost 1,200-word tribute to Uncle Walter?
But Snowden already knew the one place he didn't trust: The New York Times. He went instead to reporters working for The Guardian and The Washington Post, each of which posted the first in a series of breathtaking revelations one year ago
Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller's series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped The New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war.
That report concerned the aluminum tubes that the administration advertised insistently as components for the manufacture of nuclear weapons fuel. The claim came not from defectors but from the best American intelligence sources available at the time. Still, it should have been presented more cautiously. There were hints that the usefulness of the tubes in making nuclear fuel was not a sure thing, but the hints were buried deep, 1,700 words into a 3,600-word article. Administration officials were allowed to hold forth at length on why this evidence of Iraq's nuclear intentions demanded that Saddam Hussein be dislodged from power: The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.
The Times published an especially embarrassing correction on July 22, fixing seven errors in a single article — an appraisal of Walter Cronkite, the CBS anchorman famed for his meticulous reporting. The newspaper had wrong dates for historic events; gave incorrect information about Cronkite's work, his colleagues and his program's ratings; misstated the name of a news agency, and misspelled the name of a satellite.
An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite's career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated ...
An ad criticizing the top U.S. general in Iraq raised charges on Thursday that The New York Times slashed its advertising rates for political reasons -- an accusation denied by the paper.
This study explores the biases, pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, by looking at quantitative indicators of news coverage in The New York Times and Ha'aretz. Several time periods were examined (1987–88, 2000–01, and post-September 11, 2001), using multiple indicators. By these measures, The New York Times is more favorable toward the Israelis than the Palestinians, and the partiality has become more pronounced with time.
Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller's series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped The New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war.
That report concerned the aluminum tubes that the administration advertised insistently as components for the manufacture of nuclear weapons fuel. The claim came not from defectors but from the best American intelligence sources available at the time. Still, it should have been presented more cautiously. There were hints that the usefulness of the tubes in making nuclear fuel was not a sure thing, but the hints were buried deep, 1,700 words into a 3,600-word article. Administration officials were allowed to hold forth at length on why this evidence of Iraq's nuclear intentions demanded that Saddam Hussein be dislodged from power: The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.
An ad criticizing the top U.S. general in Iraq raised charges on Thursday that The New York Times slashed its advertising rates for political reasons -- an accusation denied by the paper.
Wasn't the public fascinated, after all, to learn that Stanley and the nation's Paper of Record managed eight mistakes in an almost 1,200-word tribute to Uncle Walter?
The Times published an especially embarrassing correction on July 22, fixing seven errors in a single article — an appraisal of Walter Cronkite, the CBS anchorman famed for his meticulous reporting. The newspaper had wrong dates for historic events; gave incorrect information about Cronkite's work, his colleagues and his program's ratings; misstated the name of a news agency, and misspelled the name of a satellite.
In fairness, I'll emphasize that the story's seventh mistake was the result of an editing error. But six errors in a story she had ample time to work on and check is not acceptable, especially for a reporter with such a troubling history of error. ...
An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite's career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated ...
But Snowden already knew the one place he didn't trust: The New York Times. He went instead to reporters working for The Guardian and The Washington Post, each of which posted the first in a series of breathtaking revelations one year ago
That report concerned the aluminum tubes that the administration advertised insistently as components for the manufacture of nuclear weapons fuel. The claim came not from defectors but from the best American intelligence sources available at the time. Still, it should have been presented more cautiously. There were hints that the usefulness of the tubes in making nuclear fuel was not a sure thing, but the hints were buried deep, 1,700 words into a 3,600-word article. Administration officials were allowed to hold forth at length on why this evidence of Iraq's nuclear intentions demanded that Saddam Hussein be dislodged from power: The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.
