Don't they have Google at NYT?

First CBS falls prey to the obviously slanted reporting from a fake news organization, and then the NYT does the exact same thing.

Two years ago, CBS "60 Minutes" linked a chicken farm in Georgia to terrorists. Turns out the source of the organization: SITE or Search for International Terrorist Entities, is a bogus front funded by pro-Bush War on Terror backers.

But irony of irony, To-day, after a huge story on pre packaged fake news they did it again.   in the same issue!!!

In a discussion of this fake group's study of press releases from Al Quaeda, Rita Katz comments.

"I think they feel they are losing the battle," said Rita Katz, director of the SITE Institute, an American nonprofit group that monitors Islamist Web sites and news operations. "They realize there will be a new government soon, and they seem very nervous about the future."

A little Googling revealed that SITE, is an "news" organization with all the credibility of Talon News. SITE consists of Rita Katz and Josh Devon. They are only cited on NationalReview Online, or Fox News, and one of the partners has been hand picked by Bush to man lots of posts on Homeland Security and other Bush organizations. Look at the site and you'll see a PR job website that dresses as a real organization. All this scrollinbg news stories are progress in the WOT. There is no critical thinking or punditry. Just a big ra-ra site.

Mrs. Katz wrote a book

Katz's book pretends to be a history. Strange history. For example, she misses by almost a full half-year the date when a notorious terrorist leader left the United States and returned to the Middle East. That error is an astounding one for an "expert."

The book appears to have two purposes -- to broadly link outspoken domestic Muslim and Arab groups with Osama bin Laden, and to undermine the FBI.

Rita Katz accused a chicken farm in Georgia of being associated with terrorists and they aired this segment on 60 Minutes two years ago. Turns out Rita Katz wrote a book that purportedly makes her a terrorism expert because she donned a burka and infiltrated a meeting.

Steven Emerson, a fake journalist who lied to Congress and to the FBI had teamed up with Rita Katz, a women who claims to have donned a burka and spied on terrorists running a chicken farm in Georgia.

And newspapers wonder why they lose readership. Because they've lost credibility. When facts are a commodity, or things that can be manufactured without question, then you you see how what we do here is more important than we may ever know.

•  Recommended

  The New York Times has descended, literally with the article you mentioned, into self-parody.

  by bink on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:46:41 PM PDT

  •  Your liberal media at work!

    Oddly enough, we and the wingnuts agree on one thing: The New York Times and all the rest of the hoity-toity media are seriously fucked up.

    by Omar on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:39:35 PM PDT

    •  Petition to stop Fake News

      LINK

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:07:47 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, the only problem

      is that for the problem to be fixed (either for the right-wingers or for us) it will make the other group hate the media even more (and believe it or not, that's still possible).

      by 2care4others on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:58:20 AM PDT

    •  And one of...

      the fundmental reasons is that they pretend to an  objectivity which is absolutely unattainable even in the physical sciences. I'll never tire of repeating this:
        Journalistic bias is inevitable becasue journalists cover events. Events are an excurtiatingly difficult to define ontological category of entities. What is the event "the death of Napolean?" Is it the whole series of phenomena that commences with his last agony and lying-in-wait and ternìminates with the funerak rites and procession? Is it the exact moment when he expires his last breath? Is it when he is suffiently unconscious and unaware as to be brain-dead? Is it
      the monent when he is officially pronounced dead by whoever believs they have the auhtority to do so? Is it all of the above? Is it infinitely divisible and recomposable into different sequences of mini-events which are susceptiblt to interpreatation and reinterpraetion, ad infinium?
         The bast that journalist can hope to aspire to is what Kant called "intersubjectivity." Intersubjetivity is facilitated by revealing one's biases,to onself and others, so that they can be taken into account and analyzed under the light of ciritcal reason, discussion and scrutiny. Hiding
      one's biases, on the other hand, only fosters
      blind faith in the ignorant and extreme distrust among the relatively informed (whether they be left or right) because they know something's not right, even if they can't exactly identify what it is.
        More dangerously, it leads to blantantly propangandistic enterprises,like Fox news (the reductio ad absurdum case), covering themselves in the same mantle of "fair and balanced" mythology
      that midleads and befuddles the ignorant and uninformed into believeing whetver they say because ..well.."it's news, honey." Or, "it's gotta be true, it's on TV", as my aunt constantly informs me.

       

      by gilgamesh on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:49:34 AM PDT

    •  And one of...

      the fundamental reasons is that they pretend to an  objectivity which is absolutely unattainable even in the physical sciences. I'll never tire of repeating this:
        Journalistic bias is inevitable because journalists cover events. Events are an excrutiatingly difficult to define ontological category of entities. What is the event "the death of Napolean?" Is it the whole series of phenomena that commences with his last agony and lying-in-wait and terminates with the funeral rites and procession? Is it the exact moment when he expires his last breath? Is it when he is suffiently unconscious and unaware as to be brain-dead? Is it the moment when he is officially pronounced dead by whomever believes himself to possess the appropriate authority to do so? Is it all of the above? Is it infinitely divisible and recomposable into different sequences of mini-events which are susceptible to interpreatation and reinterpraetion, ad infinitum?
         The best that journalist can hope to aspire to is what Kant called "intersubjectivity." Intersubjectivity is facilitated by revealing one's biases,to onself and others, so that they can be taken into account and analyzed under the light of critical reason, discussion and scrutiny. Hiding one's biases, on the other hand, only fosters blind faith in the ignorant and extreme distrust among the relatively informed (whether they be left or right) because they know something's not right, even if they can't exactly identify what it is.
        More dangerously, it leads to blantantly propangandistic enterprises,like Fox news (the reductio ad absurdum case), covering themselves in the same mantle of "fair and balanced" mythology
      that midleads and befuddles the ignorant and uninformed into believeing whetver they say because ..well.."it's news, honey." Or, "it's gotta be true, it's on TV", as my aunt constantly informs me.

        Click on that link, if you dare, and you'll really learn somehting about the nature of the  problem of events vs. facts,objects,
       etc....

      by gilgamesh on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 09:06:48 AM PDT

  •  Awesome Work

    I think the NYTimes as an institution is such a hackjob (there are still many fine journalists there), and when it comes to correcting for mistakes, they make Donald Rumsfeld look contrite!

    I emailed a link to the story and this research to their news department, their managing editor and the public editor.  I beseiged them with a rant when they ran their bulcrap blog story about blogs being the rumor mill.  They got pissed, and of course never made a correction or revised their position.  The email I sent today was nicer and steight forward.  I recommend filling their inbox.  

    here are those addresses:
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]
    [e-mail]

    PS - does anyone know of a website that is doing a watch over the NYTimes exclusively....I know Media Matters covers some of this - but I am looking for a resource with a narrower scope - only NYT.

    by atomicBirdsong on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 07:39:50 AM PDT

•  Sheer Laziness

  is the only thing I can think that is at the root of this shit.

  The tv news is completely worthless - unless you want Ken & Barbie giving breathless updates on Michael Jackson 24/7, and even reading multiple newspapers is not enough - you have to be your own damn journalist/private detective these days.

  by Proud SW FL Lib on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:50:23 PM PDT

  •  Sheer laziness

    ... also the reason that the networks are running prefabricated stuff from the WH instead of own pieces.  Oh- and decreasing budgets for newsrooms across the US.

    by paziz on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:48:19 PM PDT

  •  I've got another explanation:

    they're on the take.

    The head honchos, or the chief editors, or the people who run the newsrooms and also make the scheduling decisions-- they are the ones being paid off.

    Don't tell me there aren't people being paid off all over the media spectrum.  Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher were just easily caught.  And they were also cheaply paid off.  

    With all the billions the administration has flowing through its fingers, supposedly destined for "Iraqi reconstruction" but unaccounted for, it's impossible for me to believe that there aren't hundreds of people being bought off for ten thousand here, twenty thousand there, at all the major newspapers and television outlets.

    by concernedamerican on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:54:19 PM PDT

    •  Historic precedent >> Fernand de Brinon

      The Encylopedia Britannica piece which Google turns up does not appear (from the teaser) to provide salient facts. I have instead selected this reference for your interest:

      http://www.conflits-actuels.com/article.php3?id_article=345
      .../...
       Pendant l'entre-deux-guerres, il est un journaliste réputé, inspirateur de la ligne en politique étrangère de l'influent Journal des Débats, homme lige stipendié par les grands intérêts financiers (banque Lazard) et industriels (de Wendel), missi dominici secret de Daladier auprès d'Adolf Hitler, ami de Ribbentrop (il a d'ailleurs été surnommé « Brinontrop » par Kérillis) et d'Abetz, proche de l'oligarchie nazie tout en étant marié à un juive, pacifiste passé au service du rapprochement France-IIIe Reich.*

      The authors of this book do not appear to have had access to Ron Chernow's The House of Morgan, or have had the opportunity to integrate their account of Brinon's pre-invasion collaboration with American Fascism (Yes! American facism), notably the doings of Prescott Bush.

      But the Good News is: Arrêté, condamné, il a été fusillé le 15 avril 1947.
      _ _ _ _ _ _  
      *../.. Between the two [world] wars he is a reputed journalist, inspiring the foreign policy line pursued by the influential Journal des Debats [ndt: flimsy sham similar to the AEI chorus], a creature on stipend from large banking (Banque Lazard) and industrial (Wendel [to name just one]) interests, Daladier's secret envoy/counsellor to Adolph Hitler, close to Ribbenthrop (thus earning Kerellis' nickname "Brinonthrop") and Arbets, close to the Nazi oligarchy while married to a Jew - a pacificist in the service of a reprochement between France and the Third Reich.

      by Heteraetcaetera on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:14:37 PM PDT

  •  It's About the Profits

    Sure, journalists can be lazy like anyone else, or as hard working as anyone else. But the sorry state of journalism in America today is a management decision.

    Television and print news organizations have been cutting back on overhead, including the news-gathering operations, to boost profits. Profits also account for the proliferation of sensationalism and fluff, especially for televsion news.

    For example, it's much cheaper to have a news crew stand outside the courthouse to give hourly updates on the Jackson trial than pay staffers to dig into the missing $9 billion of funding for Iraq.

    Newspapers, too, have been cutting back on news operations as circulation erodes, a longterm trend that has little to do with lazy journalists or biased reporting.

    Into that vacuum step the propagandists, both from big business and big government. Television stations take those Bush Admin video press releases and broadcast them without attribution so that viewers won't realize what a cheap, shabby operation they run.

    It's yet another example of how the corporate interests and the rightwing support each. It's infinitely more pernicious than some lazy journalists or some hacks on the take.

    by millennialpaine on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:35:19 PM PDT

    •  Keeping Happy Advertisers

      Let's not forget the corporate advertisers in all of this. It has been said, 'he who pays the piper calls the tune.' Do you think Ford wants people to read that they are recalling a million cars? Do you think Exxon Mobil wants to see healthy public debate about drilling in the ANWR? MBNA sure doesn't want you to know how they have influenced bankruptcy legislation.

      What corporate interest is upset by Michael Jackson coverage? The more powerful the corporate interests become in government, the less the MSM will report on it.

      by bobinson on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 04:50:11 AM PDT

    •  Agree about the state of the news biz

      and the increasing demand that they be a profitable part of the entertainment empire that owns much of them.

      However, in this particular case with the independently owned Times whose circulation has increased in the past few years,  I think it was reporter laziness and lack of good editorial oversight - much like the Jayson Blair fiasco. This says to me their house is not in order yet.

      by Proud SW FL Lib on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 07:11:34 AM PDT

•  Great catch . . .

  I blew right by that article this morning. Now you gave me an important reason why.

  Thank God the Style section still reports the unvarnished truth.

  Right?

  by chrississippi on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:53:04 PM PDT

  •  Home Decor is pretty good

    by Agathena on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:32:10 PM PDT

    •  Styles of the Thymes

      Are Paris and Nicky still not talking to each other?

      So many facts

      So few column inches

      So little time

      Never enough Editors to go around

      So few column inches

      Spel Chekers, Fac Chekers

      Dedlynes,

      Dedlynes of the Thymes

      by notcho on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:55:52 PM PDT

      •  This is great, notcho!

        I remember a time long ago and far away, the early years of the Clinton administration, when I was having lunch with some family friends.  One of them said a young male neighbor had come running into their house after listening to Rush Limbaugh to tell them that Clinton was going to be impeached (must have been some early Whitewater canard from Rush).  They had simply dismissed the info, based on the source.  

        I recall saying that I didn't have to pay attention to that kind of info--if it was really important the true story would be in the NYTimes.

        Heh. Ha.

        Would that were true.

        by jawbone on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:34:18 PM PDT

        •  But you know...

          They do a mean Fashions of The Times, Spring and Fall. Men and Women.

          However,

          Unlike the WSJ Editorial page, they don't have comics.

          However,
          Unlike the WSJ, they do have reasonably good taste. :-)

          by notcho on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:11:36 PM PDT

  •  NYT style section

    Thank freaking god for the style section or we'd all look like Disney and Walmart!

    by madaprn on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:08:48 PM PDT

•  Nothing but a maildrop

  Their whois lists:

  Domain ID:D88029849-LROR
  Domain Name:SITEINSTITUTE.ORG
  Created On:01-Jul-2002 18:23:07 UTC
  Last Updated On:22-Oct-2004 22:09:21 UTC
  Expiration Date:01-Jul-2005 18:28:33 UTC
  Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
  Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
  Registrant ID:21356780-NSI
  Registrant Name:SITE Institute
  Registrant Organization:SITE Institute
  Registrant Street1:4200 Wisconsin Ave. NW
  Registrant Street2:#228
  Registrant Street3:
  Registrant City:Washington
  Registrant State/Province:DC
  Registrant Postal Code:20016
  Registrant Country:US
  Registrant Phone:[phone]
  Registrant Phone Ext.:
  Registrant FAX:
  Registrant FAX Ext.:
  Registrant Email:[e-mail]
  Admin ID:21356780-NSI
  Admin Name:SITE Institute
  Admin Organization:SITE Institute
  Admin Street1:4200 Wisconsin Ave. NW
  Admin Street2:#228
  Admin Street3:
  Admin City:Washington
  Admin State/Province:DC
  Admin Postal Code:20016
  Admin Country:US
  Admin Phone:[phone]
  Admin Phone Ext.:
  Admin FAX:
  Admin FAX Ext.:
  Admin Email:[e-mail]
  Tech ID:5923756-NSI
  Tech Name:SWISHMAIL.COM
  Tech Organization:SWISHMAIL.COM
  Tech Street1:72-31 150TH STREET
  Tech Street2:SUITE 3B
  Tech Street3:
  Tech City:FLUSHING
  Tech State/Province:NY
  Tech Postal Code:11367-2551
  Tech Country:US
  Tech Phone:[phone]
  Tech Phone Ext.:
  Tech FAX:
  Tech FAX Ext.:
  Tech Email:[e-mail]
  Name Server:NS1.WEBGOKU.COM
  Name Server:NS2.WEBGOKU.COM
  

  But the address is a Mail Boxes Etc:

  Mail Boxes Etc. #57

  4200 WISCONSIN AVE NW, WASHINGTON, 20016 D.C., United States

  Tel. [phone]
  Fax. [phone]

  by silence on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:30:05 PM PDT

  •  Even better...

    It turns out that Katz is a paid government "consultant".

    According to the The Spokesman-Review of Boise, she appeared as an expert witness against Sami Al-Hussayen, who was accused of providing material support to terrorists by funneling money to Islamic organizations and helping operate and maintain a series of Web sites for the groups.

    Katz, a paid consultant for the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office who played a central role in their investigation of Al-Hussayen...

    also acknowledged that her contract with the government calls for her to be paid up to $180,000, and that she already has been paid more than $130,000 for her work on the case.

    by auntdeen on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:30:58 PM PDT

    •  Bad link, here is cached version

      The Spokesman-Review

      by auntdeen on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:34:39 PM PDT

•  Keep Hitting Them

  on their fake news with fake facts!

  What the hell is wrong with these people.

  Can you say propaganda!

  It is time for John Q. Public to understand that they are being betrayed by the media!

  by missliberties on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:58:01 PM PDT

•  Fuck the Times

  The wingers hate them already.  Let's do our best to make them irrelevant.  Treat them like a bad sitcom who jumped the shark two seasons ago.

  Cancel your subscriptions, only reference them or link to them in a negative way.  Continue to call them on their bullshit at every turn.

  If they want to continue with this garbage, they need to feel it in their financials.

  Praise the WAPO, LA Times, etc. whenever you can.    

  The opposite of love is indifference.  

  by buddyk on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:09:46 PM PDT

  •  WAPO?

    The Washington Post Front page is just as bad as the NYT. They are/were cheerleaders for the Bush Wars and agenda.

    by ctsteve on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:48:01 PM PDT

    •  I wasn't trying to endorse the WaPo

      ...as much as I was interested in discrediting the Times.  

      Millions of people never pick up a paper but I'd bet if you asked them what the most influential rag in the country was, they'd say the New York Times.  That's a mind set I would like to see changed.

      But you're right.  I jumped ahead of myself when proposing alternative papers.  

      by buddyk on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:17:05 PM PDT

      •  Thanks-- should have said I am not a fan of NYT

        I should have stated that I am no fan of the NYT. I was a regular subscriber until a year ago. Because of their biased Front Page reporting I stopped buying it. I even try not to read them online, because I do not want to support their corporate greed. Very sad to see the NYT sell their soul to the corporate elite.  The NYT frontpage is no longer looking out for the citizens, that are not part of the corporate power structure.

        This sums it up over at Buzzflash.com
        

        
        We'll probably lose some of our readership that can't stand anyone implying that the NYT News Section is basically a White House propaganda zone. Yeah, there are a few exceptions, but the basic premise of the NYT News Section has been the that Bush Administration is credible, legitimate and not a danger to democracy.
        

        
        --snip--
        

        
        They give their columnists free rein, but it's the front page that lands on the doorsteps of Washington and the power elite in NYC that sets the tone. And the front page says loudly and clearly that Bush is a reasonable, trustworthy person.

        Meanwhile, the New York Times apparently has no objection with sharing the White House press room with a prostitute who daytimes as a Republican shill.

        Perhaps it's just poetic justice, because the NYT White House coverage is a model example of a mainstream media that prostitutes itself for access and profitability.
        

        by ctsteve on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:12:48 PM PDT

      •  Most relevant than NYT is-

        Not exactly a news paper per se:

        http://www.comic-news.com/ is the online version. Silly news, a few columns, and more political cartoons than you can shake a stick at. (I actually wrote a column for a year, when I was SLUG Queen.) Buy a subscription, and tell them Queen Carmen sent you!

        by Lainie on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:00:02 PM PDT

    •  Absolutely agree

      At least the Times has Frank Rich, a true voice of democracy, instead of Howie the K. And he's going to be published in a newly expanded Week in Review op-ed in a couple of weeks, instead of being exiled to the arts section.

      Though the Times certainly did its share of cheerleading before the invasion, enough that they felt compelled to apologize afterwards (fat lot of good that does).

      by sidnora on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:24:52 PM PDT

      •  That's great news!

        Frank Rich is one of the few good things hidden in the bloated skirts of the Gray Lady.

        by deafmetal on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:02:13 PM PDT

  •  wow.

    "The opposite of love is indifference."

    excellent.

    by deBOraaah on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:04:42 PM PDT

  •  If right wingers hate the NYTimes, it must be

    doing something right.

    by Agathena on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 11:09:52 PM PDT

•  What does it say about America

  that The Times is commonly considered our highest "quality" newspaper? That people still say "I read it in The Times" as if that were synonymous with "I heard it from G-D." That, for that matter, it's still in business!?

  Actually, I see no reason to drive it out of business. But it's time we all started saying "New York Times" the same way we say "Washington Times."  In fact, I think I'm going to show that Moonie journal a little more respect. At least they're honest about their agenda and not entirely incompetent at achieving it.

  by matt n nyc on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:13:44 PM PDT

  •  It doesn't say a goddamn thing about *America*

    Don't go making the mistake of thinking that NYC is the entire country. If somebody mentioned "The Times" to this Oaklander, I'm more likely to think of the LA Times, one of the better newspapers in America these days, or the London Times, one of the int'l newspapers I hit up every day. I don't read the NY Times, paper or internet, but I know you NYC'ers are still enamored of it. What does it say about New Yorkers that you can't demand a better paper? (/only a little snark)

    A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood

    by tmo on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 11:50:25 PM PDT

    •  Travel a little

      Try to find a copy of the LA Times in Des Moines or Tulsa. The NY Times is available pretty much anywhere major newspapers are sold.

      And don't accuse New Yorkers of parochialism. I'd say we're the first to see how bad a paper the NY Times has become. Most of my friends never buy it -- while I know plenty of people all across the country who go out of their way to get a copy of at least the Sunday Times.

      by matt n nyc on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:48:13 AM PDT

•  Well, Maccabee and silence...

  Hope you don't mind, but I just used part of your posts to send the NYT a piece of my ##$%^@@*&!!! mind....No, not exactly, but I did just e-mail the following to Robert Worth (the SITE citer), to Barstow & Stein (his fellow muck-rakers, hmmmmmm....), Okrent (public editor), and Mr. Keillor himself (Editor, NYT).  These people slay me--oh no, I forgot, they'd be too lazy to do that.  Anyway, the letter:

  Just who are some of the "Some" who say?

  Dear Mr. Worth:

        Please note that SITE, the "American nonprofit group" you refer to in your article in today's Sunday times ("Jihadists Take Stand, 3/13/05), appears to be a "group" of exactly two people.  To intimate that they are some sort of experts vis a vis the middle east situation catches you out in exactly the sort of government propaganda scam your newspaper is decrying in another article in the exact same edition ("News or Public Relations? For Bush It's a Blur," by Barstow and Stein, 3/13/05).  Please either use real experts and real advocacy groups in conducting your research, or clearly explain the exact nature of your sources.  I am including the following excerpts from posts written by members of DailyKos today which describe SITE in more detail.

  By Maccabee: "A little Googling revealed that SITE, is a "news" organization with all the credibility of Talon News. SITE consists of Rita Katz and Josh Devon. They are only cited on Nationa lReview Online, or Fox News, and one of the partners has been hand picked by Bush to man lots of posts on Homeland Security and other Bush organizations. Look at the site and you'll see a PR job website that dresses as a real organization."

  By silence:

  "Nothing but a maildrop (none / 0)

  Their whois lists:

  Domain ID:D88029849-LROR
  Domain Name:SITEINSTITUTE.ORG
  Created On:01-Jul-2002 18:23:07 UTC
  Last Updated On:22-Oct-2004 22:09:21 UTC
  Expiration Date:01-Jul-2005 18:28:33 UTC
  Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
  Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
  Registrant ID:21356780-NSI
  Registrant Name:SITE Institute
  Registrant Organization:SITE Institute
  Registrant Street1:4200 Wisconsin Ave. NW
  Registrant Street2:#228
  Registrant Street3:
  Registrant City:Washington
  Registrant State/Province:DC
  Registrant Postal Code:20016
  Registrant Country:US
  Registrant Phone:[phone]
  Registrant Phone Ext.:
  Registrant FAX:
  Registrant FAX Ext.:
  Registrant Email:[e-mail]
  Admin ID:21356780-NSI
  Admin Name:SITE Institute
  Admin Organization:SITE Institute
  Admin Street1:4200 Wisconsin Ave. NW
  Admin Street2:#228
  Admin Street3:
  Admin City:Washington
  Admin State/Province:DC
  Admin Postal Code:20016
  Admin Country:US
  Admin Phone:[phone]
  Admin Phone Ext.:
  Admin FAX:
  Admin FAX Ext.:
  Admin Email:[e-mail]
  Tech ID:5923756-NSI
  Tech Name:SWISHMAIL.COM
  Tech Organization:SWISHMAIL.COM
  Tech Street1:72-31 150TH STREET
  Tech Street2:SUITE 3B
  Tech Street3:
  Tech City:FLUSHING
  Tech State/Province:NY
  Tech Postal Code:11367-2551
  Tech Country:US
  Tech Phone:[phone]
  Tech Phone Ext.:
  Tech FAX:
  Tech FAX Ext.:
  Tech Email:[e-mail]
  Name Server:NS1.WEBGOKU.COM
  Name Server:NS2.WEBGOKU.COM
  But the address is a Mail Boxes Etc:

  Mail Boxes Etc. #57

  4200 WISCONSIN AVE NW, WASHINGTON, 20016 D.C., United States

  Tel. [phone]
  Fax. [phone] "

            If you have information which establishes that SITE is an actual group or news organization, I would appreciate hearing about it.
                          Sincerely, etc.

  by bibble on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:20:28 PM PDT

  •  They're really a 501(c)3

    According to guidestar.org, they're really a 501(c)3.

    Some of what they turn up appears to be real. The problem is that we haven't got any way of evaluating whether it is representative of the material they claim to search, whether some of it is fiction, who their funders are, or what kind of partisan agenda the SITE institute might have.

    The use of a mail drop instead of a real address only serves to make them more mysterious.

    by silence on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:48:12 PM PDT

    •  Right--

      I knew as I wrote the letter up that we don't really know what the f**!# they are, and that I would likely get it wrong whatever I said--and therein lies the problem.  If the information was out there in a clear way, I'd be able to get it right.  Oh well, my bit of howling in the wind for the day.

      by bibble on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:58:34 PM PDT

      •  new terminology?

        for the blogosphere's dedicated perserverance in researching suspect "news" organizations (regardless of whether their non-profit status is bonafide):  "Gannoogling"?

        by Silverleaf on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:31:44 PM PDT

    •  501(c)(3) organization credentials

      Doesn't mean bupkis.  Anyone can start a 501(c)(3), it takes just a few forms and a little time.

      The forms, once submitted, are virtually always approved.

      by DraconisRex on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:34:30 PM PDT

  •  Did you send this letter to Mr. Worth?

    While not trying to excuse the NYTimes (or other SCLM), it has been my experience with other reporters there that they will reply to your letter. Please post his response, if and when it comes.

    by Spud1 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:18:48 PM PDT

    •  or write a letter to the editor

      It's sloppiness, not a massive pro-Bush agenda at work.

      by Windy on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:32:31 PM PDT

  •  Keillor?

    Is the NYT a prairie home companion?

    (You mean Bill Keller I think)

    This is enough to make one cry. Colin Powell says we're losing, but BushCo Fake News Service says the terrorists think they're losing. And now the Times makes it clear:

    The Truth is losing.

    What was that about a free press being essential to a Democracy? Can we amend that to free of covert manipulation?

    by peeder on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:36 AM PDT

•  the other day

  in the laundromat I heard on TV an ad for the Times (I live in Brooklyn), which was obviously geared for younger (20 and 30 something) readers (the demographic that percentage-wise is reading newspapers far, far less than even ten years ago).

  The ad had young, upwardly mobile looking actors saying how much they liked reading the Times.

  One of them said "I read the Times to feel like I'm in the know"--and I thought well that about sums up mainstream "journalism": the reader feels like he/she is in the know, when in reality he/she is not in the know at all.

   

  by gnat on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:22:57 PM PDT

  •  Hah!

    But doesn't it make you feel good?  

    <sigh>

    Hey, I suppose it's par for the course, FOX News makes conservatives feel good because they don't report much that goes counter to, you know, The Way Things Ought To Be.  Just discard those other inconvenient facts 'cause they might upset people.

    by daria g on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:36:57 PM PDT

  •  pffft!

    That demographic is probably more inclined to get their (fake) news from Jon Stewart!  

    by a2jean on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:32:09 PM PDT

  •  Is that the same ad

    they've been running for something like 20 years?  It never changes. Those actors have to be in nursing homes by now. I've always thought it was an embarrassment for the Times. Our local car dealer ads keep more up to date than that.

    Or maybe, finally, they've got a new one?

    by QueenMizz on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:08:16 PM PDT

  •  A 4 for you gnat,

      for reminding me of all the hours I've spent in Brooklyn laundramats.  It was always an enjoyable couple of hours. Bring a book, maybe meet someone who knows.   Thanks

    by slick riddles on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:22:49 PM PDT

  •  Marvellous, isn't it?

    Advertisers often confuse the benefit to the customer with their business objective. When you're directing a major account you can't afford not to flatter such a big-spending client, and you let him have his head even though it's bad advertising, stupid copy, wretched casting and transparently mendacious.

    You take the cash, sit back and sneer to yourself: "Let the Whole World Know these chaps have their heads in the place where the sun don't shine." Hey! It's their money.

    The greatest campaign we (won't tell who - in another country, in another time: it's irrelevant) put together was for a spec builder. The homely, dumpy AE had a finger missing, so we came up with a cheery, maimed, visual and "Nine good reasons you should...." Every one a real benefit to the client - not what the client fantasized about himself. It sure was a hard sell, but it made print.

    So there.

    by Heteraetcaetera on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:28:55 PM PDT

•  There's still Salon.com,

  Tom's Dispatch, Raw Story, Democracy Now, The Nation, Christian Science Monitor...

  by Agathena on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:31:36 PM PDT

  •  Haven't The Nation and CSM also been in trouble

    recently for false reporting? They're two of my favorites, but we should be honest.

    The big question seems to be who can we trust? Each time a different source is praised, someone brings up some past problem with it. I get the idea that the general feeling is to avoid all major media outlets, which I try to do as much possible anyway. However, I don't think that's completely possible, since our livelihood depends so much on analyzing material released from major media outlets.

    Perhaps the point of this is that even though the NYT, WAPO, CSM, and The Nation have serious ethical problems, they still seem to be the best we have. Having said that, I'm not trying to defend them one bit and don't mind the criticism.

    by rogun on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:16:26 PM PDT

    •  David Corn dismissed the Gannon story

      but I haven't read about any scandals regarding either of those papers.

      by Agathena on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 11:07:10 PM PDT

•  God

  this is depressing as shit.  It's no wonder things are so pathetic in the trust department.

  You can trust the Times. You can trust broadcast. You's have to read a zillion blogs everyday to have enough data to sift for truth. Which of course you can't do because of blah blah blah.

  So you end up trusting some places more than others.  

  This place is relatively high on my list because important things are pretty well vetted by the swarm. But you have to be careful and not get carried away on some of the pig paths.

  by Anglico on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:50:48 PM PDT

  •  Duh.

    Make those can's can'ts.  Sheesh.

    by Anglico on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:51:55 PM PDT

•  Don't they have Google at NYT?

  Maybe NYT has outsourced its operations to China.

  by NonemptySubset on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:51:49 PM PDT

•  Hurray for Frank Rich--

  I sent him my e-mail letter (see upthread) about all this too (and cc'd to Maureen Dowd), and to my surprise he wrote back a little personal note of thanks for getting the info to him--boy, a real response from a real person!

  by bibble on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:59:26 PM PDT

•  Real reporters

  are above Google.  It's just pantsless slobs who need to stoop to that.

  by MissLaura on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:04:13 PM PDT

•  Devaluing media integrity

  NPR's Ombdusman Jeffrey Dvorkin wonders why his Inbox is getting full of angry e-mails... He comes with this "magnific" insight: Readers are angry at a media community who doesn't abide by it's own ethical standards... Gee, ya think ?!?!?

  At a public meeting in Jackson, Miss., last week, a listener to NPR programs on Mississippi Public Broadcasting asked me if I had detected a sense of outrage growing in the country.

  If my inbox is anything to go by, I certainly have. The reasons for this cyber-outrage might be worth pondering.

  NPR's political editor, Ken Rudin, recently said: I can't recall a time when my inbox has been filled with such vituperative name-calling, accusing me and NPR and the media in general of wholesale bias.

  Like Gresham's Law in economics (bad money devalues good money), bad journalism makes people suspect that all journalism is corrupt. When we claim that we are not corrupt or biased, it is then suspected that we are in denial or must be adept at hiding our biases.

  Hence, I believe, the angrier tone toward today's journalism

  NPR : Is It Too Late to Ask for Some E-mail Etiquette?

  by lawnorder on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:39:04 PM PDT

  •  Heaven forbid!

    
     Heaven forbid that Dvorkin even consider that the reason people are sending outraged emails to him is due to biased, lazy and generally sub-par journalism [sic] which has infected NPR (J Wms, C Roberts, M Laiason and S Inskeep, e.g.).  That's so typical of Dvorkin:  conjure up a Rube Goldberg explanation for a circumstance that is explainable by simply reading and contemplating the damn e-mails.  Gee, what a concept!

     BenGoshi
    __________________
    

    by BenGoshi on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 10:55:22 AM PDT

    •  But he is correct in a sense

      Bad journalism is why listeners are angry.

      Bad journalism at NPR included...

      by lawnorder on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:01:21 PM PDT

•  This is a good diary

  I had read about SITE earlier, and they semed to smell a bit rotten. Your first link seems to imply that they are a spinoff of a Likud front. Quite plausible, certainly.

  I wouldn't trash the NYT for screwing up like this, though. They deserve a sharp rebuke, but they still represent a good (but imperfect) standard of journalism. Things like this should be brought to the reporter's attention, in the hope that the people there are merely mistaken and can be brought around with solid evidence.

  by tritium on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:57:23 PM PDT

  •  NYT good standard of journalism???????????????

    I wouldn't trash the NYT for screwing up like this, though. They deserve a sharp rebuke, but they still represent a good (but imperfect) standard of journalism

    90% of the NYT frontpage coverage is pro-Bush propaganda.

    It is sad that you believe that the NYT frontpage is a good standard of journalism.
    

    by ctsteve on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:18:48 PM PDT

    •  I read the NYT regularly

      They are my main source of meat'n'taters news.

      And I still manage to dislike this administration.

      I suspect that if the presidency were decided by the people who read the NYT, then Bush would not stand a chance.

      Yes, they are not rantingly anti-Bush, but any halfway decent journalist who supplies a stream of facts is almost by definition a foe of this administration. And The Gray Lady is pretty good at supplying a stream of facts.

      by tritium on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:53:55 PM PDT

•  Steven Emerson

  What a dangerous phoney he is!

  The Jewish Federation of Greater Oklahoma City, of which I am a semi-active member, had this "terrorism expert" as a featured speaker a few years ago. One of the many occasions where I felt I had politically to bite my tongue when dealing with other Members of the Tribe in central Oklahoma (mind you I didn't attend the event, but I had to sit through a number of meetings in which folks sat around and congratulated themselves that such a distinguished person was coming to talk to us).

  by GreenSooner on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:17:07 PM PDT

  •  I seem to have come into this relatively late

    What has Steven Emerson said that is verifiably contrary to fact?

    I've seen some of his writings and have no problem with the idea that our alleged security apparatus is dangerously incompetent.

    by alizard on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 10:54:38 PM PDT

    •  Emerson's Crusade

      Emerson has a long track record as a relentless Arabophobe and Islamophobe. In the words of this article from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's (FAIR) journal Extra!, his career is marked by a "lengthy list of mistakes and distortions that mar his credentials as an expert on terrorism."

      Do click through to the article to see what FAIR was so upset about.  It's a career marked by bigotry, enormous lapses in journalistic ethics, and a tendency to respond to critics by attacking them rather than backing up what he has to say.

      Emerson is like Laurie Mylroie with a more subtly tailored tin foil hat.

      by GreenSooner on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:55:35 AM PDT

•  forward to times writer

  Will someone please forward this to the NYT writer and editor as well as public editor Dan Okrent. It is important for us to be assiduous in calling attention to the errors.

  by marysk on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:17:30 PM PDT

  •  Done--see upthread.

    by bibble on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:38:18 PM PDT

  •  include this

    valuable link.  

    by BAS on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:25:25 PM PDT

•  Maybe...

  ...they've only got dial-up at the Times and it just takes too damn long to google every little thing.    

  by boran2 on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:40:01 PM PDT

•  Need more progressive SITES

  A few people on the left have done this in connection with a few issues, such as bank compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. But, in general, wingnuts are a lot better at setting up and marketing one-person "think tanks" than progressives and moderates are.

  Bloggers are great, and some bloggers with some kind political or military experience in the real world could probably could set up organizations such as similar to SITE, but Daily Kos and Wonkette are just as useful as a think tank. Reporters think of blogs as low-budget electronic newsletters, and, in general, the last person a reporter wants to quote is another reporter. Quoting a fellow reporter is almost as bad as relying too heavily on a press release.

  To start a think tank:

  • You need to be someone who has some academic or some work experience, or preferrably both, in the field you want to focus on.

  • You have to have good research and analytical skills.

  • You have to have an encyclopedic, fair command of the facts, so that you can get into articles as a source of facts as well as of opinions. (Sometimes, reporters are desperate to come up with sources for widely "known" but seldom-sourced "facts.")

  • You have to know enough about the wingnut point of view to write a good wingnut position paper.

  • You should be able to come up with terrific, moderately conservative arguments in favor of progressive positions. In other words: someone who can make progressive arguments for progressive causes is pretty useless. Someone who starts spouting off about capitalist hegemony and Democrats being cryptofascists is useless. The rhetoric the think tank person uses has to be neutral enough to be appealing to moderate voters who hate Ralph Nader as well as those who hate Pat Buchanan. Even if the think tank person is, in fact, trying to promote Nader-type positions.

  • The think tank person has to establish good Web site and put a new paper -- ideally something based on some kind of survey or other study based on "facts -- every 2 weeks.

  • Ideally, the think person should shell out the money to put a press release up on U.S. Newswire at least once a month.

  • The think tank person should answer his/her cell phone 24/7.

  • The think tank person should send a letter of introduction, a brochure and a prefilled-out Rolodex card that gives his/her cell phone number to about 50 of the key reporters covering his/her beat.  

  • The think tank person should have a hide of steel. The think tank person should make it clear that s/he will never go after a reporter no matter how the story ends up looking, except possibly to try to push for a follow-up story. In other words: the think tank person should make it clear to the story that quoting that think tank person will NEVER result in a libel suit, an angry letter to an editor, or even a request for a correction of a typo. The most successful think tank person will be someone who's a cheerful, instantly accessible quote machine who will absolutely never increase the reporter's level of stress.

  • The think tank person should follow the news closely and maintain a large network of other types of human quote machines who can talk about stuff like what teachers think or what doctors think or what college students think from a progressive point of view. So, if a reporter calls to ask for a quote about an elementary education bill, the think tank person can spout off quotes, then ask, "By the way, do you need to talk to a teacher? Here's the cell number of a teacher who would probably love to talk to you."

  by sclminc on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:49:51 PM PDT

•  Nagourney is head DLC shill

  I have seen so many pieces of his where he covered Dean from a DLC / Rovish perspective.  

  I have at least 3 letters I've written the puke, calling him on it. Of course, I am not one of his Ivy League / East Coast / Insider buddies, so what do I know?

  BTW - the payolla these scum get isn't as direct as bags full of cash - although that would probably be more honest corruption.  Instead, they get expense account trips / lifestyle supplements, while jetting about under the guise of "reporting", and at the end of the day they have a high flying 7 figure a year habit that, if they want to be able to keep mainlining that habit, they'd better tell daddy what he wants to hear.

  by rmdewey on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 09:00:06 PM PDT

•  'NY Times front page is a white house shill'

  is it really?  I check out the new york times almost every day, but more for the business, arts and editorial sections than the front page content; I usually learn about the breaking news stories on the internet well before the Times has it in print.

  From what I do read of it, their front page coverage of Bush certainly feels watered-down, but not nearly as bad as pure uncut White House propoganda.  Or 24-hour cable news.

  The biggest problem is they consistantly give the man a clean slate, and when they find out he's lied or that he's acting against the public interest, they refuse to shout it out.  They'll print it, maybe even in the third paragraph of a top news article, but it's not given nearly enough emphasis.  As a result, the story is deemed insignificant and it dies. This is where they fail the public.

  But White House propoganda?  They still regularly publish the kinds of gruesome, full-color images from Iraq that the Bush administration does not want out there. They're still putting the private social security accounts up to scrutiny whenever they're mentioned.  They still give the Democrats a say, and not always in a defensive context.

  when the too-fluffy front page stuff is out of the way, they usually cut through the bullshit on their op-ed page and in deeper articles.  In fact, the paper's editorial is almost always a condimnation of the latest right wing ploy.

  So while this may very well be completely naive of me, I cast another vote for the Times being flawed and far too timid, but not a total waste or a corporate shill.  I say keep up with them and hold their feet to the fire when they fuck up like this.  We're trying to do just that with the Democratic party, why not the few established press outlets that aren't totally Republican owned and operated?

  by placeworm on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 09:20:38 PM PDT

•  Bill Keller needs to be clobbered with a clue X 4

  From todays NYT article, Can Papers End the Free Ride Online?
  

  Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, said of relying on advertising as the sole revenue stream: "My main concern is that, however we distribute our work, we have to generate the money to pay for it. The advertising model looks appealing now, but do we want our future to depend on that single source of revenue? What happens if advertising goes flat? What happens when somebody develops software to filter out advertising - TiVo for the Web?"

  Yeah, this would be too bad.

  I just hate it when that happens.

  That said, I don't use any adblocking on sites that provide decent content and where the ads are nonintrusive (no sneaky popups).

  News sites should offer paid subscriptions for new content and open the archives, instead of doing it the other way round (or just open a free window of a month after a week from initial publication).
  

  by Felix Deutsch on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:22:55 AM PDT

•  AP: "Onion Renamed 'New York Times'"

  
   Wow!

   

   AP (March 14, 2005):  A popular satire and spoof-laden newspaper and website, 'The Onion', announced today that it was changing its name to 'The New York Times'.  'The Onion' Editor-in-Chief Carol Kold said, "Our paper was losing some of its 'edge', some of its humor was getting upstaged by the howlers being printed in the ('New York) Times', so we decided to give our paper a name that would be synonomous with humor and whackyness, and, hopefully, entice our readers to come back home and, of course, entice new readers who only know about the 'Times' as the 'go-to' paper for self-referential parody."

   In response, 'The New York Times' spokesperson Jack 'Happy' LeReaux said, "We are considering all options, including legal action, to address this blatant infringement on our newpaper's venerable name and preeminent place in the world of 'fake' and chuckle-making reporting."  "When Americans want to laugh during these troubled times, there is only one 'Times' it turns to, and this upstart's attempt to infringe on our role as America's favorite laugh-maker is no laughing matter," said LaReaux, who spoke to reporters at  'The New York Times' office, wearing a clown nose and punctuating his words by occasionally spraying  reporters with a seltzer bottle he held in his right hand. . .    

   (more at AP's website)

   Again -- wow!

  BenY'allHaveANiceDayGoshi
  __________________

  by BenGoshi on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:45:16 AM PDT

•  ...more Nazi/Stalin news propoganda...

  I think smart people continue to see the Nazi/Goebbels/Stalin media propoganda techniques.  When people compare the Bush administration's media propoganda to Nazi Germany, pro-Bush people are always quick to say, "You're unpatriotic."  But, this is also a Nazi strategy, to label people who disagree with "the state", "unpatriotic".  People who equate the Bush administration's with Nazi Germany are only comparing the media propoganda manipulation.  Another tactic is to claim that they are comparing other aspects of the Nazi's, like the holocaust, which is false.

  by maplespak on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:49:25 AM PDT

  •  Nazis?

    Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

    JOSEPH GOEBBELS:

    "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"

    "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

    "We have made the Reich by propaganda."

    by benedict on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 07:25:48 AM PDT