The New York Times' Litany of Failures

I do not understand why people call the New York Times the 'newspaper of record', as though they're somehow better than other newspapers.

They don't act like it.

Recently they accused Richard Blumenthal of repeatedly lying about his military service.

It made particular reference to one speech he gave in 2008 where it appeared that he stated he had served in Vietnam.

Maureen Dowd provided a column slamming him for it.

Slate magazine provided this list of nine comments by their writers slamming Blumenthal for this.

They also unleashed this article, which at first glance seems to be about a Vietnam War memorial in New York, but it's actually a polemic against Mr. Blumenthal. I can't quite get over this one.

Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s attorney general and embattled Democratic candidate for senator, has probably already made plans for the Memorial Day weekend. He’s got a lot of campaigning to do, and some explaining, too.

But if he can find time, he may want to drive down to New York and visit the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Water Street in the financial district. There, he could learn a thing or two about that war from men who actually fought it — unlike Mr. Blumenthal, who has on occasion claimed to have been there, though the closest he may have gotten to a Vietnam experience is at Saigon Kitchen in Hartford. ...

I was a Vietnam-era soldier. But a Vietnam veteran? It never occurred to me to call myself that. Those are not misplaced words. They are a lie.

There's a lot more in there, but that should be enough to get a flavor of what is said.

Turns out actually Blumenthal was quite open about what he actually did during those days. He had earlier stated accurately in his 2008 speech that he did serve in the Vietnam era. Most local Connecticut reporters say he did not hide the facts of his military service.

Apparently this information was provided by the opposing campaign.

Clearly there are a lot of problems with how the New York Times dealt with this story as this Guardian article put it:

So by the weekend, when Blumenthal received the endorsement of Connecticut Democrats, three major problems had arisen in the Times's reporting:

• The Times had failed to reveal that Blumenthal, in the 2008 speech that was at the centre of its story, had accurately described his military service just minutes before saying he had served "in" Vietnam.

• An important source in that initial report, Jean Risley, who chairs the Connecticut Vietnam Veterans Memorial, said she had been misquoted.

• The little detail about Blumenthal's having lied about being on the Harvard swim team turns out to be almost certainly wrong.

Thankfully the Daily Howler provides us with this helpful reminder of all the times the New York Times has messed up in recent years. Whitewater, slamming Al Gore in 2000, accusing John McCain of having an affair on very weak evidence, Judith Miller. And how some people still seem to uncritically accept what they say.

Why do people give this paper some sort of creditability as though they are better than any other media source by calling them the 'newspaper of record' when all these things happen? I don't get it.

They certainly did not act like a newspaper of record in those instances. Why give them that honor?

(Thanks to the Guardian article for providing 'litany' for my title.)