Well, here's a pretty good example from NYT, "reporting" on the special session in Texas, where Repubs were trying to jam thru a bill to kill abortion rights in at least half of the state.
“With all the ruckus and noise going on,” Mr. Dewhurst said, he could not complete administrative duties to make the vote official and sign the bill. Senate Democrats and women’s right’s advocates said the real reason the vote could not be made official was a time stamp on official documents that showed the bill passed after midnight. The Legislature’s official Web site first posted that the Senate’s vote occurred on Wednesday, after the midnight deadline, but the date was later changed to Tuesday for unknown reasons.
Yo, NYT Editors; that last bit there - the date was later changed to Tuesday for unknown reasons - that's why nobody trusts what you guys put out any more.
Yes, you need to maintain something like a Veneer of Integrity, and you need to avoid making unfounded accusations of wrong-doing. OK, we get that. But "unknown reasons", and you just leave it at that? That's strictly bush-league surface-level reporting; any high school monthly could come up with something better than that.
Maybe you could ask a question or two that might be germane to the proceedings in some obscure tangential way; like, oh I dunno - is it common for the time stamp to be changed like that? When was the last time a time stamp was changed? Is it legal for someone to change a time stamp after the fact? Is there anything in the Ethics Handbook or in the Rule Book about such things?
So why do we think you guys suck at your job? Because you suck at it.
No comments:
Post a Comment