The New York Times Hit Piece on Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Atrios:
Journamalism: Either the NYT just ran with oppo research they were fed without bothering to check, or they did their own snipitty snip snipping. Given recent history, I imagine they'll address the issue in 10 years or so.
Jamison Foser:
The New York Times has some explaining to do: This Associated Press report about the controversy surrounding Richard Blumenthal’s description of his military service raises some questions about the New York Times’ handling of the story:
The crisis erupted when The New York Times reported that Blumenthal had repeatedly distorted his military service. The story included quotations and a video of Blumenthal saying at a 2008 event that he had "served in Vietnam." The newspaper also said Blumenthal intimated more than once that he was a victim of the abuse heaped on Vietnam veterans upon their return home. A longer version of the video posted by a Republican opponent also shows Blumenthal at the beginning of his speech correctly characterizing his service by saying that he "served in the military, during the Vietnam era."
So why didn’t the Times include Blumenthal “correctly characterizing his service” in its version of the video? That’s awfully misleading, isn’t it? Given that Republican Linda McMahon’s campaign has taken credit for feeding the Times the Blumenthal story, you have to wonder if it gave the Times the incomplete video, as well. Either way, the Times should explain why it chose to omit Blumenthal’s correct characterization of his service.
Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?
