NY Times is caught in yet another lie

[WVPATX]

Fake news and called out immediately. Change their story soon thereafter.


When the White House announced this week that President Trump had sent President Xi Jinping of China a letter wishing him a happy Chinese New Year, it did not disclose a major reason for the friendly gesture: Mr. Xi hasd not, at that point, gotten on the phone with Mr. Trump…

…Stung by an earlier, and unorthodox, telephone call between Mr. Trump and the president of Taiwan, Mr. Xi hasd not spoken to Mr. Trumpthe American leader since Nov. 14, the week after he was elected.

President Donald Trump’s response is one for the ages:



President Trump: “The failing @nytimes does major FAKE NEWS China story saying “Mr.Xi has not spoken to Mr. Trump since Nov.14.” We spoke at length yesterday!”

 

[moe]

Fake news and called out immediately. Change their story soon thereafter.


When the White House announced this week that President Trump had sent President Xi Jinping of China a letter wishing him a happy Chinese New Year, it did not disclose a major reason for the friendly gesture: Mr. Xi hasd not, at that point, gotten on the phone with Mr. Trump…

…Stung by an earlier, and unorthodox, telephone call between Mr. Trump and the president of Taiwan, Mr. Xi hasd not spoken to Mr. Trumpthe American leader since Nov. 14, the week after he was elected.

President Donald Trump’s response is one for the ages:



President Trump: “The failing @nytimes does major FAKE NEWS China story saying “Mr.Xi has not spoken to Mr. Trump since Nov.14.” We spoke at length yesterday!”

The Times was aware of the recent phone call? Do you know the difference between a journalistic mistake and a lie? I don't think so. Also what is so special about Trump's tweet? one for the ages? lol okey dokey

 

[PriddyBoy]

The Times was aware of the recent phone call?

I was. Maybe the NYT should check the real news sometimes or hire some editors that do.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

Fake news and called out immediately. Change their story soon thereafter.


When the White House announced this week that President Trump had sent President Xi Jinping of China a letter wishing him a happy Chinese New Year, it did not disclose a major reason for the friendly gesture: Mr. Xi hasd not, at that point, gotten on the phone with Mr. Trump…

…Stung by an earlier, and unorthodox, telephone call between Mr. Trump and the president of Taiwan, Mr. Xi hasd not spoken to Mr. Trumpthe American leader since Nov. 14, the week after he was elected.

President Donald Trump’s response is one for the ages:



President Trump: “The failing @nytimes does major FAKE NEWS China story saying “Mr.Xi has not spoken to Mr. Trump since Nov.14.” We spoke at length yesterday!”

Is it not possible that during the time the piece was written and published that the call took place? It is right to call out this out when we need to clean up actual fake news? Sometimes you amaze me with your partisan politics because other times you seem fairly moderate and level headed.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Looks more like the left hand and the right hand didn't know what each was doing. You can call it fake news if you want, but I think that is a stretch. More like a lack of teamwork.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/world/asia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping-letter.html?_r=0

 

[PriddyBoy]

Is it not possible that during the time the piece was written and published that the call took place? It is right to call out this out when we need to clean up actual fake news? Sometimes you amaze me with your partisan politics because other times you seem fairly moderate and level headed.

Seriously? I must be trippen, I thought this meeting was known of for days. Oh well, he tweeted it so the media will fully research this most important issue.

 

[WVPATX]

The Times was aware of the recent phone call? Do you know the difference between a journalistic mistake and a lie? I don't think so. Also what is so special about Trump's tweet? one for the ages? lol okey dokey

They are supposed to confirm their facts. Easy to do. Have you ever heard of a phone call? An e-mail? They could call the White House and get absolutely up to date information instead of sending out fake news. They should have made that call. It is called basic journalism.

 

[WVPATX]

Is it not possible that during the time the piece was written and published that the call took place? It is right to call out this out when we need to clean up actual fake news? Sometimes you amaze me with your partisan politics because other times you seem fairly moderate and level headed.

My daughter is a journalist. She said the first thing they should have done before running this story is to call the White House to confirm and get them on record if they are willing.

The White House could easily have said that Trump and China's President are on the phone at this very moment.

Fake news.

 

[WVPATX]

Looks more like the left hand and the right hand didn't know what each was doing. You can call it fake news if you want, but I think that is a stretch. More like a lack of teamwork.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/world/asia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping-letter.html?_r=0

The NY Times had a story they wanted to tell. They told that story. Never contacted the White House to confirm. Journalism 101. This is the epitome of fake news. They had a standard method to confirm the story and CHOSE to not make that call.

 

[moe]

They are supposed to confirm their facts. Easy to do. Have you ever heard of a phone call? An e-mail? They could call the White House and get absolutely up to date information instead of sending out fake news. They should have made that call. It is called basic journalism.

So the reporter was lazy and a bad journalist yet you accuse them of lying. To lie, a person would need to know something was patently false yet report it anyways and that's not what you describe so I guess you're the liar here. Could there be a more trivial story than this? Also all I have to go on is your version of events since you don't back anything up.

 

[Popeer]

The NY Times had a story they wanted to tell. They told that story. Never contacted the White House to confirm. Journalism 101. This is the epitome of fake news. They had a standard method to confirm the story and CHOSE to not make that call.

Nice try, dumbass. The article clearly states that the Thursday call was the first time Trump and Xi had spoken since November.

President Trump told President Xi Jinping of China on Thursday evening that the United States would honor the “One China” policy ... Mr. Xi ... had not spoken to Mr. Trump since Nov. 14, the week after he was elected.

Had not spoken -- not have not spoken ... as in, Thursday night was the first time they talked since November. Reading comprehension much? Maybe your journalist daughter could teach you something about past participles.

 

[PriddyBoy]

So the reporter was lazy and a bad journalist yet you accuse them of lying.

I can't find where he said lying. Fake News is the end result.

 

[WVPATX]

So the reporter was lazy and a bad journalist yet you accuse them of lying. To lie, a person would need to know something was patently false yet report it anyways and that's not what you describe so I guess you're the liar here. Could there be a more trivial story than this? Also all I have to go on is your version of events since you don't back anything up.

BASIC JOURNALISM. The NY Times wanted this story and the slant they provided. They did not want to check any sources at the White House. It is BASIC JOURNALISM. Ask any journalist you know.

They have editors at the NY Times. One person did not make this mistake. It took the reporter and the editor. Easy phone call to make and happens all the time. FAKE NEWS.

 

[moe]

BASIC JOURNALISM. The NY Times wanted this story and the slant they provided. They did not want to check any sources at the White House. It is BASIC JOURNALISM. Ask any journalist you know.

They have editors at the NY Times. One person did not make this mistake. It took the reporter and the editor. Easy phone call to make and happens all the time. FAKE NEWS.

You've proven that you don't know what a lie is and you don't know what fake news is. Have I missed anything?

 

[PriddyBoy]

Nice try, dumbass. The article clearly states that the Thursday call was the first time Trump and Xi had spoken since November.

President Trump told President Xi Jinping of China on Thursday evening that the United States would honor the “One China” policy ... Mr. Xi ... had not spoken to Mr. Trump since Nov. 14, the week after he was elected.

Had not spoken -- not have not spoken. Reading comprehension much? Maybe your journalist daughter could teach you something about past participles.

Good catch. I'd like to see the printed issue.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[moe]

I can't find where he said lying. Fake News is the end result.

See the subject line of the thread.

 

[WVPATX]

Nice try, dumbass. The article clearly states that the Thursday call was the first time Trump and Xi had spoken since November.

President Trump told President Xi Jinping of China on Thursday evening that the United States would honor the “One China” policy ... Mr. Xi ... had not spoken to Mr. Trump since Nov. 14, the week after he was elected.

Had not spoken -- not have not spoken. Reading comprehension much? Maybe your journalist daughter could teach you something about past participles.

One phone call could have confirmed the NY Times story. The phone calls are all planned in advance and the White House could have been confirmed with a simple phone call the the call was taking place. Why did the Times issue an UPDATED article if they were accurate in their reporting?

Basic journalism. No need to an update if the reporting were factual. And your has vs. had argument reminds me of Billy's "depends on the meaning of the word "is"

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/world/asia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping-letter.html

 

[PriddyBoy]

See the subject line of the thread.

Noted. There's one for the suggestion box. Have an option to carry the subject line through the thread? Once you jump into a thread it's easy to forget the subject line. At least this thread hasn't evolved into religion or global fracking yet.

 

[WVPATX]

You've proven that you don't know what a lie is and you don't know what fake news is. Have I missed anything?

Why did the NY Times UPDATE the article if it were true? They wanted this story to be true. No fact checking with the White House. The reporter and editor just went with it. I equate fake news with lying. Maybe you don't but I surely do.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/world/asia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping-letter.html

 

[WVPATX]

So the reporter was lazy and a bad journalist yet you accuse them of lying. To lie, a person would need to know something was patently false yet report it anyways and that's not what you describe so I guess you're the liar here. Could there be a more trivial story than this? Also all I have to go on is your version of events since you don't back anything up.

No, this is exactly what I described. What about the editor? They have a job and it is to ensure the story is accurate and cooperated.

This is a big story. It proves the NY Times has an agenda and they will forego basic journalism to achieve it.

 

[PriddyBoy]

Why did the NY Times UPDATE the article if it were true? They wanted this story to be true. No fact checking with the White House. The reporter and editor just went with it. I equate fake news with lying. Maybe you don't but I surely do.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/world/asia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping-letter.html

It seems like at the pace our political war among ourselves is moving that the NYT would have rebuffed Trumps claim by now if the claim was mistaken. It'd be great if we could unite against our common enemy.

 

[moe]

Why did the NY Times UPDATE the article if it were true? They wanted this story to be true. No fact checking with the White House. The reporter and editor just went with it. I equate fake news with lying. Maybe you don't but I surely do.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/world/asia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping-letter.html

The letter was sent Wednesday. Trump and Xi spoke last night and hadn't spoken prior to Nov. 14. So? There's a correction at the end of the article about misspelling someone's name, so? What are your claims regarding the timeline? What is the mistake that you claim that the Times made? When did the Times publish their article about the letter that Trump sent?

 

[Popeer]

QUOTE="WVPATX, post: 1457172, member: 2180"]your has vs. had argument reminds me of Billy's "depends on the meaning of the word "is"[/QUOTE]
Thus confirming your tenuous grasp of the English language.

 

[WVPATX]

The letter was sent Wednesday. Trump and Xi spoke last night and hadn't spoken prior to Nov. 14. So? There's a correction at the end of the article about misspelling someone's name, so? What are your claims regarding the timeline? What is the mistake that you claim that the Times made? When did the Times publish their article about the letter that Trump sent?

The article was published on the 9th. The same day as Trump's conversation with the President of China. The NY Times then updated the report. Not sure what the letter has to do with anything. They claimed they had not spoken since November. If they had called to confirm their story, they would have been told of the conservations. Instead, the reporter and the editor went with it without seeking any comment or corroboration from the White House.

Below are the updates:

http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1352278/1...sia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping-letter.html

 

[PriddyBoy]

The letter was sent Wednesday. Trump and Xi spoke last night and hadn't spoken prior to Nov. 14. So? There's a correction at the end of the article about misspelling someone's name, so? What are your claims regarding the timeline? What is the mistake that you claim that the Times made? When did the Times publish their article about the letter that Trump sent?

Where's the Times' rebuttal? He tweeted it so we'll know soon enough one way or another, IMO.

 

[moe]

The article was published on the 9th. The same day as Trump's conversation with the President of China. The NY Times then updated the report. Not sure what the letter has to do with anything. They claimed they had not spoken since November. If they had called to confirm their story, they would have been told of the conservations. Instead, the reporter and the editor went with it without seeking any comment or corroboration from the White House.

Below are the updates:

http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1352278/1...sia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping-letter.html

So the article was published before Trump and Xi spoke last night so the Times is correct.

 

[WVPATX]

So the article was published before Trump and Xi spoke last night so the Times is correct.

No, the NY Times is obligated to contact the White House or any other subject of a story for their input. It is journalism 101. They did not or they would have learned about the call.

They published an update to reflect that fact. This is not that hard. The reporter and the editor didn't bother to conduct basic journalism. They. had the story they wanted and went with it.

 

[PriddyBoy]

The article was published on the 9th. The same day as Trump's conversation with the President of China. The NY Times then updated the report. Not sure what the letter has to do with anything. They claimed they had not spoken since November. If they had called to confirm their story, they would have been told of the conservations. Instead, the reporter and the editor went with it without seeking any comment or corroboration from the White House.

Below are the updates:

http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1352278/1...sia/donald-trump-china-xi-jinping-letter.html

I like the original headline: "China’s President, Stung by Taiwan Call, Is Said to Shun Trump."
"Stung" and "Is Said to...." That's beautiful. I might have to give them artistic license on that one.

 

[WVPATX]

I like the original headline: "China’s President, Stung by Taiwan Call, Is Said to Shun Trump."
"Stung" and "Is Said to...." That's beautiful. I might have to give them artistic license on that one.

The fact is, the Times wanted to publish this story. Neither the reporter or the editor (as is standard journalistic practice, called the target of the story to confirm (The White House). They got caught, big time and issued an updated story to reflect the actual facts.

 

[moe]

No, the NY Times is obligated to contact the White House or any other subject of a story for their input. It is journalism 101. They did not or they would have learned about the call.

They published an update to reflect that fact. This is not that hard. The reporter and the editor didn't bother to conduct basic journalism. They. had the story they wanted and went with it.

Your complaint is about a sequence of events and you haven't shown that the Times made an error. The Times published an article on Thursday regarding a letter that Trump had hand carried to China on Wednesday and in that article the Times stated that the prez hadn't spoken to Xi since Nov. 14, true statement. Since the prez spoke with Xi last night, after the Times article about the letter was published, then the Times was correct unless the Times article was published last night after the prez and Xi spoke. Where am I in error? (on this Bigly story)

 

[WVPATX]

Your complaint is about a sequence of events and you haven't shown that the Times made an error. The Times published an article on Thursday regarding a letter that Trump had hand carried to China on Wednesday and in that article the Times stated that the prez hadn't spoken to Xi since Nov. 14, true statement. Since the prez spoke with Xi last night, after the Times article about the letter was published, then the Times was correct unless the Times article was published last night after the prez and Xi spoke. Where am I in error? (on this Bigly story)

No, my complaint is about fake news. The NY Times wrote the article. They desperately wanted it to be true (that Trump had not spoken to the Chinese President since November of last year). Ask any journalist. The reporter is supposed to speak with or at least email the target (The White House) to confirm the story being written. Then give them a chance to respond. At a minimum, the editor should have insisted on this practice. Neither did. As a result, they did not know about the phone call or the planned phone call. When they were advised of the call, they immediately issued an update.

The ignored basic journalism to achieve a result they desperately wanted.

 

[moe]

No, my complaint is about fake news. The NY Times wrote the article. They desperately wanted it to be true (that Trump had not spoken to the Chinese President since November of last year). Ask any journalist. The reporter is supposed to speak with or at least email the target (The White House) to confirm the story being written. Then give them a chance to respond. At a minimum, the editor should have insisted on this practice. Neither did. As a result, they did not know about the phone call or the planned phone call. When they were advised of the call, they immediately issued an update.

The ignored basic journalism to achieve a result they desperately wanted.

Huh? You need to show that the Times was wrong and you haven't. If the Times is not wrong then what is the purpose of this thread?

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Huh? You need to show that the Times was wrong and you haven't. If the Times is not wrong then what is the purpose of this thread?

Look pal, do you even have a daughter in journalism school? Cause if not, your posts mean nothing.

 

[moe]

Look pal, do you even have a daughter in journalism school? Cause if not, your posts mean nothing.

What you say is true but I've just got a thing for fussing with mentally unstable people, I can't help it. Poor girl.

 

[WVPATX]

Huh? You need to show that the Times was wrong and you haven't. If the Times is not wrong then what is the purpose of this thread?

No, I need to show a complete lack of basic journalism that caused them to mislead and then have to update a story.

 

[WVPATX]

Look pal, do you even have a daughter in journalism school? Cause if not, your posts mean nothing.

Let me ask you a basic question (I used my daughter as an example of even a very young journalist knowing that you check with the subject of a story before publishing).

Is she wrong? Show us what you got and prove she is wrong.

BTW, my daughter graduated from ASU's Cronkite School of Journalism if that matters. I have never stooped to calling you a liar, but now I see just how low you can go. Not pretty.

 

[moe]

No, I need to show a complete lack of basic journalism that caused them to mislead and then have to update a story.

How did they mislead?

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Let me ask you a basic question (I used my daughter as an example of even a very young journalist knowing that you check with the subject of a story before publishing).

Is she wrong? Show us what you got and prove she is wrong.

BTW, my daughter graduated from ASU's Cronkite School of Journalism if that matters. I have never stooped to calling you a liar, but now I see just how low you can go. Not pretty.

How low did I go? I mocked you for using an unverifiable and completely irrelevant source. I did not mock your daughter, nor did I call you a liar. Grow up.

 

[WVPATX]

They did not follow even basic journalism. They did not seek the truth. They did not vet. Journalistic malpractice. Agenda driven journalism. When you don't even attempt to get to the truth, it is fake news.


Reuters
VETTING TIPS
REVISION AS OF 20:09, 6 SEPTEMBER 2013 BY BRIAN.MOSS (TALK | CONTRIBS)
(DIFF) ←OLDER REVISION | CURRENT REVISION (DIFF) | NEWER REVISION→ (DIFF)


Checking Stories for Fairness

Before You Publish: Some Thoughts

• Follow the Trust Principles. Our stories should be balanced and free of bias.

• Seek comment from everyone named in the story. The goal is to practice “no surprises” journalism: The people and institutions we are writing about shouldn’t be surprised when they read our story about them. Fully explain to them what we’re saying about them, and seek their response.

• Craft a nut or significance paragraph(s) high up. It should explain why the story matters; and, if the story is a scoop of fact or analysis, it should explain what’s original about the story. Make sure the reporting delivers on the promise of the nut.

• State explicitly why a story’s premise may be overstated. In other words, don’t shy away from acknowledging the story may be more complicated than it seems and add nuance. (“To be sure…”)

• Disclose the holes in a story. Acknowledging the key facts or mysteries our reporting could not resolve adds to a story’s credibility.

• When a key subject, company or institution declines to comment, provide its point of view. Preferably, this would come from a credible, on-the-record source; at the very least, provide contextual information that may put things in a more neutral light.

• State clearly what already is already known about the subject we are writing about and what is new news.

• Use anonymous quotes only if they are absolutely crucial. Otherwise, paraphrase or cut -- especially anonymous critics attacking other people. The goal of any story is to use only on-the-record sources.

• Show, don’t tell. Anecdotes, examples, documentary evidence and statistics should be the meat of our stories, in most cases. Quotes should be the spice.

• Be sure the outside “experts” we cite really know what they are talking about. If they and other sources have an agenda or axe to grind, disclose it.

• Anticipate how an ongoing story is likely to develop and flag to readers what may be the next shoe(s) to drop.

• Bring stories that read overly prosecutorial or conclusory into tonal balance, avoiding language that makes it look like we are taking sides. For example, “he/she says” vs. “he/she admits” is neutral – and best.

• If this story were about a family member, would you find it fair?

• Again, follow the Trust Principles. When in doubt, cut the copy, seek more reporting – or spike.