NY "Psyops" Times publishes a FAKE LETTER slamming Caroline Kennedy -- and it's still up!!

[bottomtheweaver]

Here's yesterday's astonishing story:

NY Times published fake letter from Paris mayor, By ANN LEVIN – 1 day ago

NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Times admitted Monday it published a fake letter purportedly from the mayor of Paris criticizing Caroline Kennedy's Senate bid as "appalling" and "not very democratic." "What title has Ms. Kennedy to pretend to Hillary Clinton's seat?" the letter in Monday's editions said. "We French can only see a dynastic move of the vanishing Kennedy clan in the very country of the Bill of Rights. It is both surprising and appalling."

In an editor's note posted Monday on its Web site, {on its WEBSITE? How about on page 1 above the fold?} the Times said the letter signed by Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe should not have been published because it violated the paper's standards and procedures. "We have already expressed our regrets to Mr. Delanoe's office and we are now doing the same to you, our readers," the Times said.

News of the hoax was first reported by France-Amerique, which published a story on its Web site Monday. Editor-in-chief Jean-Cosme Delaloye said an employee of the French language monthly, which is based in New York City, read it Monday morning and was skeptical. "When we read the letter it just sounded very surprising, the choice of words sounded very surprising," he told The Associated Press. "When we called Paris to verify the information ... they were very surprised." Virginie Christnacht, head of Delanoe's press office in Paris, told the AP the letter was a fake. "We have asked The New York Times for a denial and an apology," she said. "Clearly, this was never sent by Bertrand Delanoe."

The Times blamed the mistake on a failure to verify the authenticity of a letter that arrived by e-mail. {Uh huh, check.} "In this case, our staff sent an edited version of the letter to the sender of the e-mail and did not hear back," the paper said. "At that point, we should have contacted Mr. Delanoe's office to verify that he had, in fact, written to us. We did not do that. Without that verification, the letter should never have been printed." The Times said it was reviewing its procedures to avoid such an incident in the future. Asked to comment, Times spokeswoman Catherine J. Mathis referred the AP to the paper's Web site.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hHk9KaeQVvPxzvQxFanYD956ShsQD957V4EO0
...........................

Now here's what's really astonishing:

(1) That the Times would nonchalantly publish a completely fake hit piece without the least concern about getting caught, which they in fact did; and

(2) That they would not only fail to apologize to Caroline Kennedy, or even consider the possibility that they should, but leave the freaking letter on their website, where it still sits, accompanied by the faintest of faint apologies (in italics):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/opinion/l22kennedy.html

Naked partisanship is one thing, it's their paper, but a bizarre and obvious psyop like this reminds me just how completely infiltrated and worthless the media in this country are. It also makes me hope to God Caroline gets that seat because there are maybe five other people in Congress worth the dust the wind blows in their faces.

/ end of :rant:

[Ghost Dog]

1. One wonders what the domain of the email address was.

(Edit: Assuming there really was one). Was it at least .fr? Was it one of mairie-paris.fr or paris.fr? (ref. quickly googled: http://www.mairie-paris.fr/).

Or was the Mayor of Paris supposed to be using a yahoo or google or microshaft or whatever type of 'free' .com email account?

[JackRiddler]

2. They should never take down anything they publish

The correction noting that it's a fake and it fooled them should be above the letter, however.

Think about where we are heading if the Times starts taking down anything it's already published.

[tom_paine]

3. I was all het up until your wise post. Unarguable, in my opinion.

They printed the correction. Should it have been more prominent? Undoubtedly.

Are Bushie Moles working at NYT responsible for this "mistake"? Ten years ago I would have laughed contemtuously at such an idea, but having seen waaaayyyyyy too much I thought was impossible to occur as easily as taking candy from a baby, it would be extreme naivete to think such wasn't possible. (which is a long way from saying it is 100% certain)

[CTyankee]

5. I think it was monumental stupidity myself. These things are easy to check out.

Especially for the NY Times. This is such a huge embarrassment to the Times that I cannot for the life of me see how it was anything other than that. That the mayor of Paris would make a comment on an internal political issue in the U.S. (which would have absolutely NO possible effect on the city of Paris) strains credulity.

The Times is stupid and arrogant. That's about all there is to this...

[tom_paine]

6. Except for the Orwellian Madness we have witnessed from ALL M$M these last 8 years

and really, these last 28 years, forces me to ALSO add that the innocent explanations for all of these "mistakes" are wearing a little thin.

As someone once said, "If a man's paycheck depends on him making a "mistake", expect him to make that same "mistake" every signle day.

Don't get me wrong, I am not reveresing course, merely playing devil's advocate to explain why I would have 100% agreed with you about this 10 years ago, but simply cannot give 100% agreement now, having witnessed what we all witness.

Still at 85-90% agreement that you are probably right.

[bottomtheweaver]

9. No publication has any obligation to put ANYTHING online

or to leave it there forever for all to read, and plenty of them don't. If the NYT had somehow accidentally published a crap hatchet job like this on one of their pals you'd better believe it would be instantly disappeared without a trace.

[robcon]

4. There's no bias against Caroline at the Times.

If anything, the publishing of her op-ed in the NYT endorsing Obama was a gift to her - she's not a politician, and is not known for her political views.

I think considering her for Senator is an abomination. There are plenty of NYers, including my Rep Nita Lowey, who are far more qualified and deserving. It's all about money - she can raise more money than the hard-working Dems of New York - any one of whom has accomplished more than Kennedy has.

[JackRiddler]

8. The Times is fully in the Kennedy camp...

A letter from the mayor of Paris should have been published.

They fucked up and published a fake. Very bad.

The correction needs to be more prominent - at the top of the page.

However, the Times should never, ever, remove pages it has already published. The implications are obvious, especially given the way the Times is used as "paper of record."

I remember I caught them doing it on one occasion - an article last year about Cheney being in Iraq to negotiate the oil deal was updated to accommodate a suicide bombing that happened that day; somehow the article lost the details about Cheney being there for the oil in the process.

See what I mean?

[bottomtheweaver]

11. Sorry, but that's total baloney.

The Times is a pro-war house organ of the adminstration with a very thin veneer of Democratic partisanship used to persuade its readership of its objectivity. As for Caroline, they've been about as "on board" as Marcia Pappas and Geraldine Ferraro. Here's their latest propaganda masterpiece:

"Resistance to Kennedy Grows Among Democrats"

ALBANY — Resistance is emerging among Democratic officials against Caroline Kennedy as she pursues Hillary Rodham Clinton’s seat in the United States Senate, with Gov. David A. Paterson bristling over suggestions that her selection is inevitable, according to his advisers, and other leading Democrats concerned that she is too beholden to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/nyregion/24kennedy.html?em

"Hillary Rodham Clinton’s seat"? I thought it was Moynihan's seat, or New York's seat? And since when is being beholden to Bloomberg a problem for the Times? And as far as leaving some ridiculous phony letter up, no, they have no obligation to post it in the first place, and not only isn't "news," it's not even authentic. If they gave a shit about ethics or truth or even their own reputation they'd have yanked it the second they found out it was fake. But I imagine they were already fully aware of that when they published it.

[JackRiddler]

13. Sorry if New Yorkers are not joining the Kennedy coronation.

This is still supposed to be a constitutional republic. Under the NY Constitution the governor appoints, not the television. The corporate media is driving an unprecedented attempt to usurp that.

If the NYT is making up now in some small way for uncritically headlining the pro-Kennedy PR campaign all the way in the first days of what is a media hijack of a governor's decision, so be it. (And the seat is undeniably Hillary Clinton's, she's still sitting in it.)

Are you saying that resistance to a Kennedy selection isn't growing among Democratic leaders? Or that the NYT shouldn't report on this? (That is, after having reported the Kennedy product launch in the first place.)

As for the fake letter, you're confusing different things:

1) If the mayor of Paris wrote about this issue, that is both news and worthy of publication. (Part of the news is that it would be pretty cheeky of a foreign mayor to get involved in this issue.)

2) The NYT editors were completely suckered and it's entirely their fault. Stupidity level: High.

3) No way was this an editorial decision to print an obvious fake. Embarrassment level: Too high. (As to who may have been involved in fooling the editors, that's another matter.)

4) As a rule, the NYT given its particular (if unofficial) role as "paper of record" should never take down pages once published; that way lies Winston Smith.

5) The correction is self-serving and inadequate. It should be at the top of the page and headline the fact that the NYT mistakenly printed a fake letter.

On #5, you have an excellent complaint!

I like Kennedy's politics (insofar as they are known) better than Clinton's. If she had run in the real election, she might have had my vote. The attempted seizure of the appointment by an obvious PR campaign negates that wholly. In this case, good politics cannot make up for usurpation of the established process. (Which is flawed, to be sure: a special election should be held within a couple of months, rather than years down the line.)

[bottomtheweaver]

14. Fine, you don't like Caroline.

It surprises me that anyone with an interest in peace or justice could feel that way, but I guess nothing should surprise me at this point.

As for your energetic defense the Times, thanks, but I don't buy it. The editors are not stupid, they weren't suckered, and they don't seem the least concerned that they've made fools of themselves. All's fair when it comes to promoting the war is pretty much what it boils down to. If Caroline was hot to bomb, she'd be their bff again.

[JackRiddler]

17. Your mistake - I like Caroline Kennedy.

At least, I think I do; if she had a program, I'd be more certain.

I dislike the attempted usurpation of a constitutional process by way of corporate media referendum.

And if you think what I wrote is an "energetic defense" of the Times, well that's your misreading. Sorry. Others can read and judge for themselves, so let's leave it at that.

[bottomtheweaver]

18. LOL. Okay you think you do, but you're using cockamamie arguments

to support a ridiculous and shameful swiftboat campaign run by an outfit you also think supports Caroline.

From the objectevity of the left coast, let me assure both of you that you don't.

[Ghost Dog]

15. So, what's the argument against special elections

in such cases?

Too expensive?

Sometimes the USA appears to actively dislike real open fair elections, somewhat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_election

[JackRiddler]

16. Agreed: There is no credible argument.

But that's the way the state constitution is written. I'd support an amendment!

[CTyankee]

21. The 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution lays it out.

"When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

[JackRiddler]

22. "as the legislature may direct" is a big enough loophole...

that NY has set up a procedure with rather crazy results: an appointment that will go for two years, followed by two elections in two years.

[CTyankee]

25. I don't get the second election deal. Isn't Hillary's term up in 2010?

Or is it the state constitution that says 2 years and Hillary's term is up in 2012 (the only way this makes any sense to me)?

[JackRiddler]

26. HRC's elected in 2000 & 2006, so her term's up in 2012.

Bizarrely the NY procedure calls for the "special election" to be scheduled at the usual biannual time for Congress (why not, at least, Election Day 2009?!) and then again at the "end of the term." We're not getting the immediate election we deserve, but then twice more than we need.

[CTyankee]

20. I always liked Nita Lowey. That woman takes no prisoners! Man, she is one

tough dame! She'd be a good Senator.

[Vickers]

7. How could they know it was fake? I mean, the email addy was

[e-mail]

:eyes:

[bottomtheweaver]

10. Looks real to me!

How could they know he had a press office with a phone number and all that? He lives in France!

[Blue_Tires]

23. of course it's real! the city has its own website!

http://www.cityofparistn.gov/

[JackRiddler]

28. Get the link right, please!

http://www.paristexas.gov/

[fla nocount]

12. Friedman wrote it before he changed into his skirt for his...

K. Parker editorial. I recognize his fake french accent and butchered prose.

[bottomtheweaver]

19. Ha.

Talented guy isn't he. :hi:

[SOS]

24. The NYT hatchet jobs on Kennedy and Rangel are laughable.

They have an agenda.
Like Judy Miller's outrageous front-page lies, one must learn to read between the lines with this paper.

[JackRiddler]

27. Contradiction...

How was it necessary to read between the lines with Miller? The fabrications she channeled were extreme and plain, her sourcing always easy to follow: "my corrupt neocon friends and their bogus informant."