Let's Roll Over The NY Times

So often I find myself wondering - is it true, or did I just read it in the Times?

On Friday, the Dead Tree Times introduced this odd perspective into what happened on Flight 93:

...The report from the 9/11 Commission on Thursday provided new, chilling details about what happened in the cockpit of Flight 93 in its last minutes. It provides a gripping account of the battle to gain control of the aircraft by passengers who knew that terrorists had seized the plane and were determined to prevent them from using it as a missile. It also discloses that the phrase "Let's roll," previously reported as a rallying cry for those passengers, may have been misinterpreted.

...The voice recorder captured sounds of continued fighting, and Mr. Jarrah pitched the plane up and then down. A passenger is heard to say: "In the cockpit. If we don't we'll die!"

Then a passenger yelled, "Roll it!" While earlier accounts reported the phrase as "Let's roll," which was repeated in speeches by President Bush and became the title of a bestseller, some aviation experts have speculated that this was actually a reference to a food cart, being used as a battering ram.

Here is a (possibly transient) link to that version of the story. An RSS link to the July 23 version is not available. However, the earlier (July 22) version does not include the speculation about "Let's roll". Evidently, more time for reflection and research has not helped this story improve.

Now, do I even need to tell you how seriously wrong the print version is? Without looking it up, I can tell you that the common belief is that Todd Beamer used the phrase in a phone conversation before the passengers began their attack. I also recall his wife saying it was a favorite phrase of his, and that the kids used it around the house all the time, which is certainly plausible - it is not like his last words were "Veni, vidi, vici" or "Rosebud".

But what I do need to look up is this - did the 9/11 report actually address the "Let's Roll" controversy, as the Times suggests? A word search of the main document says they did not. The "roll it" reference appears on p. 14, with a footnoted reference to the cockpit voice recorder as a source. As noted, this phrase was used during the final assault on the cockpit door. "Let's roll" is not mentioned.

So what was the Timesman thinking, why is his story getting worse instead of better as he rewrites it, and will his editors eventually intervene?

One guess is that over-eager reporter Michael Wald thought he had a scoop, and, although he managed to get some idle speculation from "some aviation experts", he forgot to run his fantasy past anyone in the building. Gee, reporters get excited just like bloggers! Too bad they don't have Google - maybe the Times could spring for a subscription.

For a gloomier guess as to what happened inside this Timesman's head, check the comments at Atrios (source of the Times link). Many of the commenters creditably point out that Todd Beamer might really have said "Let's roll" even though Bush later repeated it, and that the Flight 93 passengers might really be heroes even though Bush says they are. However, some of the comments take a different tack.

Lest you wonder, the LA Times realized that "Roll it" and "Let's roll" were distinct. I have not spent a lot of time checking other papers.

Now, the blogosphere (or general outrage) bent the AP to our implacable will on a related story. We can do this.

MORE: I plagiarized The Man Sans Q. Good job by Brad DeLong, who is my "fair use" inspiration.

The Times is always happy to hear from their readers:

Corrections: nytnews@nytimes.com

Public Editor DanielOkrent: public@nytimes.com

Comments

[A.R.Yngve]

You have a point there, that the NYT would be more credible as a Web publication, so that on-the-fly corrections could be made. Print is too slow.

But ironically enough, NYT is the ONLY newspaper I never read online -- because of their "Register Before You Read Us" policy...

I'd like to know how many other Web users also refuse to register at NYT.com.

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

[TM]

"In other news, the 9/11 Report's analysis of the cockpit voice recorder data failed to provide any evidence supporting President Bush's controversial allegation that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium in Africa..."

(Joe Wilson, on his first day as a new Times reporter).

[jrdroll]

What no mention of Abu Ghraib?

[ed]

Hmmm.

I don't think the NYT would be credible as a web only publication. While they do sometimes print corrections in their newspaper, they rarely update their website.

[Tim]

"In other news, the 9/11 Report's analysis of the cockpit voice recorder data failed to provide any evidence supporting President Bush's controversial allegation that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium in Africa..."

... or that he was was not AWOL from his teeth, er, National Guard, while in Alabama.

[maggie katzen]

A.R. I don't read it either. I usually try to get a friends log on to read things like that. Just don't know anyone yet. ;D

[Buddy Larsen]

The other NY paper, the Wall Street Journal, is assumed by many to be mere financial news, with a Rockefeller country-club slant. Nay, perhaps decades ago, but now? No. Fuddy-duddy, grampaw's paper? Not lately; in fact, it makes the straining-for-hip at NYTimes seem so silly it's almost unfair. And the financial reporting is not over about half the ink--mostly the index numbers, I don't use 'em, the net is better--the great feature is the intelligence and sensitivity of the world/national news coverage. Without writing a book, let me just say the antennae are marvelous over there, the treatment assumes not just reader literacy but reader fair-minded decency. Daily 'features' concern lots of gem-like little stand-alones from odd corners of the world, intensely written and literary without deliberately meaning to be--at least, in no way that shows.There is no slant in the features, reader gets info that can as easily be cast left as right. The editorials are marked as such, the contempt for the reader seen at the NYTimes in the fraudulent presentation of opinion as news simply does not exist at the WSJ. An overall editorial philosophy? best described as Lockean, that all we do flows from the principle of right-and-wrong, and that the definition may be mutable-to-circumstance, but the principle is to be always ignored at great risk of grave personal consequences for morale and self-respect. Just google 'John Locke', there've been many Lockean philosophers since, but start there, in 5 minutes you'll see exactly what's wrong with the NYTimes, and why perhaps it is under so much pressure these days, as so much truth seems to be breaking out all over.

[J_Crater]

I don't know what drugs they are using at the NYT, but I don't want any.
All the news fit to wrap fish.

[TommyG]

Damn your eyes jrdroll, that what I was going to say...

[Dave Perkins]

I for one refuse to register at nyt OR at the LATimes.. it's a cynical attempt to add me to a database in order to sell it to advertisers and make more money for the paper, while the paper harangues capitalism and derides money-making people and demands they be taxed "their fair share"..

Note to NYTimes: you don't become morally superior just by pretending you already are.. you're in the newsbiz to make money, and you're making money... if wealth is evil, you're as evil as the rest of us.. but by altering our readership habits, we intend to purify you and make you less evil each year until finally you aren't evil at all..

you should be happy about this.. :-)

"for all the news that's printed to fit (our preconceptions)"

[Sarah Brabazon-Biggar]

Maggie, use www.bugmenot.com to get logins.

[Eileen]

Maybe it's a Times thing. The ultra-conservative Seattle Times requires you to register, while the so-called liberal P-I doesn't.

[ed]

Hmmm.

"What no mention of Abu Ghraib?"

Yeah I'm in withdrawls already. :/

If they think that stuff is excessive. I wonder what they'd think of the "Crossing The Equator" ceremonies.

Probably call them "human rights abuses", ask Cuba and the Sudan to intervene in the UN and blame Bush for losing control over the military.

sigh.

[Jon Fellows]

"The ultra-conservative Seattle Times?!"

Eileen, what color is the sky on your world?

The Times may be less liberal than the P-I, but in no sense can it be called right of center.

[young gay male ass spanking]

Excellent site I have bookmarked your site and I will come back soon! http://spankingforest.spazioblog.it/

[BoyMedExams]

I wish everybody do his job like you do http://gaydoctor.yeublog.com/