The Times Responds to Edwards Article Criticism

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 04:21:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Greg Sargent gets a response from the Grey Lady:

We gave the Edwards camp ample opportunity to respond, and we quoted their full response in the article. The article focused on the activities of the Center for Promise and Opportunity, and how that benefited Mr. Edwards; it did not focus on the sister charity that provided the scholarship money. In fact, when it did mention that sister charity, it cast it in only a positive light, and noted how much it had given out in scholarships.

Greg notes that the egregious flaw of the article, the lede, remains unexplained:

this headline and lede state unequivocally -- and this is the crux of the article -- that the reason he created the nonprofit was as a "solution" to his problem, which was that he needed to "keep alive his public profile" for 2008. Yet the evidence the piece cited to prove this assertion was largely, if not completely, circumstantial. . . .

In short, the lede of a NEWS article is an OPINION. Simply egregious journalism. The Times can not defend that lede. Apparently it has chosen to ignore the problem.

< Nader Considering Run For Presidency Open Thread | And Now For Something Completely Different . . . >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Times Responds to Edwards Article Criticism | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The Times Has Nothing to Defend (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by talex on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:32:57 PM EST

Over at dkos it was asked where did the article say the good that Edwards charitable work did. people were claiming nowhere did it do that. Well if you start with the HEADLINE!

In Aiding Poor, Edwards Built Bridge to 2008

Duh! >In Aiding Poor. How much more clear can you get. And yes of course the article get unflattering from that point on but the headline says what the headline says.

And then of course The Times responded to the hysteria on the blogs:

We gave the Edwards camp ample opportunity to respond, and we quoted their full response in the article.

The article focused on the activities of the Center for Promise and Opportunity, and how that benefited Mr. Edwards; it did not focus on the sister charity that provided the scholarship money. In fact, when it did mention that sister charity, it cast it in only a positive light, and noted how much it had given out in scholarships.

Every bit of that is true and they did print Edwards' official reply in full and they did mention the scholarship money.

Now on to Sargent today. He says the Times proved nothing. Really? Well how did he miss the references to the Federal Filings and the quotes from those filings in the article? Those filings are public record as are the quotes taken from them. Not only can they easily be confirmed, the fact is that Edwards himself has not disputed them. How much more proof do you need?

If anyone who wants to rebut the Times they can go to the public filings and try to do so. But before you do remember that Edwards has not disputed any of this.

Once again a fine example of the blogosphere going berserk when the answer to the very thing they are complaining about is in the article itself! And then of course blogs from dkos to here, and everything in between, pick it up and run with it and don't bother to see for themselves that the answer was right in front of them.

Again the records are public and what was said about them Edwards did not dispute.

And Edward broke no laws - criminal or tax.

And yeah it was a hit piece. Unfortunately what they were hitting Edwards with was true. But even given that what Edwards did was brilliant as I said in my post here the other day and what he gained from his move is far greater that what this article will cost him IMO.

Talex has no response for the egregious lede (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 09:03:44 PM EST

You are a joke.

Please go away.

[ Parent ]

Well Yours (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by talex on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 09:53:43 PM EST

is undoubtedly the worse response I received today after I showed how everyone had missed that the answer to their complaint was right in the article itself. Normally I would expect as much from you. But in this case given how you have been critical of Sargent in the past one would think that you would have sifted through the article yourself to see if you agreed. I guess not.

I've posted here before about blogs picking up erroneous things from other blogs and instead of doing their own due diligence they just blindly print it. Keep that in mind next time.

[ Parent ]

: Here's how it would work (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:00:36 PM EST

The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that you are a lying troll.
But if I was the NYTimes, I would not print that as fact.
Defend the lede, if you can. You can not so you ignore it.
You are a bad joke.

[ Parent ]

the old ad hominem trick (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by diogenes on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:00:19 PM EST

When there is no answer to the content of the article, change the story into an attack on the person (in this case, the newspaper) and run with that.

: I wrote a very specific critique of the lede (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:01:59 PM EST

You have just written a comment describing your own behavior.
Like Talex, you seem to believe that your tired act is not easily seen through.

[ Parent ]

Here's the AP on (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 06:12:08 PM EST

Edwards's response. Nothing re NY Times. The article includes:

The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group that tracks money in politics, has suggested Edwards used the nonprofit to help his presidential campaign and has pressed him to disclose its donors.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-On-the-2008-Trail.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

as usual (none / 0) (#2)
by cpinva on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:20:47 PM EST

there's no there, there. supposition, innuendo and suspicion, all bolstered by.............nothing.

as for the nyt's, if they took the time to explain all the pathetic excuses for reporting that appears on their pages, with respect to only democrats, they'd not have time for much else.

hence, they don't bother.

I take it this is directed at Talex (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:03:20 PM EST

Please clarify.

Edwards is lucky that the NY Times broke this (none / 0) (#11)
by Geekesque on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:45:04 PM EST

story first.

The AP story is much more thorough, much fairer, and much more damaging when taken in full.

The NY Times's obvious hackwork allows the Edwards folks to throw out the baby with the hackish bathwater.

: Until this afternoon, a Google of (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:02:14 AM EST

Edwards nonprofit revealed the initial NY Times article and lots of references to that article in blogs, MSNBC, et al. AP article article came out days after the NY Times article.

[ Parent ]