Powered by TypePad

« Still The Bane Of The Left | Main | The Progressive Muslim Union of North America »

November 14, 2004


Robert Crawford

I'm not sure if I have this straight: On Saturday, the NYTimes prints a story going after blogs for repeating conspiracy theories that have been debunked.

Then, on Sunday, the NYTimes prints an EDITORIAL latching on to those same debunked conspiracy theories.

Is that right? I'm asking because it just seems so utterly retarded that I can't believe even the NYTimes would do it.

Tim Worstall

One of the little known facts of the newspaper business. The Sunday is written by a different crew from the Saturday. Yes, we might hope that they read it, but it's not actually the same people making this sort of cretinous goof.

David R. Block

Tim, that really almost makes it worse. Then it's a "the left hand doesn't know what the right had is doing" kind of thing.

Or is it the "the one left hand doesn't know what the other left hand is doing?"

Anyway, is there a BRAIN connecting the two hands??



"Anyway, is there a BRAIN connecting the two hands??"

No. There are no brains at the New York Times.

There are however an extraordinary number of ass****s.

Maybe that's the connection. :)

Mr. Bingley

"Anyway, is there a BRAIN connecting the two hands??"

No. There are no brains at the New York Times.

There are however an extraordinary number of ass****s.

Maybe that's the connection. :)

well, as they used to say in the wendy's ads, "parts is parts"


No one reads the Saturday NY Times - even among die-hard fans of the paper (which is why you can be sure to find there what precious morsels of crow the editors grudgingly serve up - in this case, admitting the vote-conspiracy stories are bogus). Most locals go without their fix during the day Saturday until 7 or 8PM when they begin loitering around newstands waiting for the Sunday edition to come out.

Mark Buehner

"Anyway, is there a BRAIN connecting the two hands??"

They used to be called editors. Nowadays they are too busy plotting to get women into golf courses and their guy into the White House. Over cocktails.


The likely explanation is more benign. Unless the Times is unlike almost every other paper in the country, the Sunday editorial pages are put to bed on Friday, not Saturday. At many papers, the Sunday editorial section is preprinted before the Saturday newspaper, or the news sections of the Sunday paper, go to press. And editorials for Sunday are probably written on Thursday and Friday. It's a little harsh to castigate an editorial writer for not having read a story that had not yet been published at the time the editorial was written. The inconsistency in message also is evidence of independence between the editorial and news staffs -- a healthy thing, I hope you'll agree, even if the editorial in question happens to be dumb.


Mike has it right. The editorials are written by the opinion staff, the news by the news staff and never the twain shall meet. It's also true that the Times week in review section is almost all done by the time the Saturday paper comes out, although I believe they are supposed to update the editorials for breaking news.

Having read both items, I'd disagree that they really contradict that much. There are a lot of conspiracy theories flying around on left-wing sites. But there are some voting irregularities that should be investigated, and the Times editorials have been flogging that puppy for most of the year. Think of it this way, regardless of the effects on the presidential race (likely to be none) or local and statewide races (you never know), don't we deserve a voting system that works? Shouldn't every vote be counted? Would we tolerate a banking system where someone trying to get $200 out of an ATM sometimes gut $2 and sometimes got $20 and sometimes got nothing? No. Well, we seem to have a voting system that is approximate, rather than precise, and one need not wear a tinfoil hat to think it's a bad thing. This should be a bipartisan matter.


Regardless of whether the editorial writers could have known that the news writers were going to debunk "The election was stolen!" before their editorial came out, the editorial page writers should have been more careful.

I also love their comment at the end about how we need umpires (elections officials) who don't take sides. Where do you find them?

Tim Gannon

If what I am reading is right, it takes 2 days for an editorial to appear in the normal Sunday paper (including the New York Times).

No wonder blogs are eating their lunch.


NYT debunked on divorce rates in red states (JUNK SCIENCE!)

Richard Aubrey

The Detroit Free Press used to have a Man in Washington. He had his own spot, bordered and with his picture, to let us know we were getting The Truth. He hated SDI. Lied like a rug.
One time, he said that the then stage of SDI r&d couldn't do this, that, and the other. In a separate section, there was a straight article about how SDI was consistently doing this, that, and the other.
I wrote the editor reminding him his job included spiking straight news ( or delaying it a week or two) that might embarrass the opinion guys.
The next time the Man in Washington appeared, it was not in his private slot on page 6, but in the op-eds, where the implication is that these guys will write anything and you believe at your own risk.
I call that a victory.

The comments to this entry are closed.