Controversies involving the New York City based newspaper
This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings.(May 2020)
The New York Times has been the subject of criticism from a variety of sources. Criticism aimed at the newspaper has been in response to individual controversial reporters, as well as alleged liberal political bias.[1]
The New York Times used to have a public editor who acted as an ombudsman and "investigates matters of journalistic integrity".[2] The sixth and last Times public editor was Liz Spayd, who contributed her last piece in June 2017.[3]
A Test of the News on the Russian Revolution 1917-1920
In 1920, Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz investigated the NYT news coverage of the Russian Revolution from 1917 to 1920. The study, published as a supplement of The New Republic concluded that the Times' reporting was neither unbiased nor accurate. The newspaper's news stories were not based on facts, but "were determined by the hopes of the men who made up the news organisations." The newspaper referred to events that had not taken place, atrocities that did not exist, and reported no fewer than 91 times that the Bolshevik regime was on the verge of collapse. Lippmann's biographer Ronald Steel sums it up: "The news about Russia is an example of what people wanted to see, not what happened," Lippmann and Merz noted critically. "The main censor and the main propagandist was the hope and fear in the minds of reporters and editors."[4][5][6]
President Clinton issued a public apology to Dr. Lee over his treatment.[13] The federal judge in charge of the case, James Aubrey Parker, remarked that "top decision makers in the executive branch ... have embarrassed our entire nation and each of us who is a citizen."[17][18] Dr. Lee filed a lawsuit under the Privacy Act alleging that officials had leaked false and incriminating information to the media before charges had been filed.[19] Dr. Lee's lawsuit was settled in 2006, just before the U.S. Supreme Court was set to decide whether to hear the case.[13] The issues were similar to those in the Plame affair criminal investigation, when Times reporter Judith Miller spent 2½ months in jail rather than reveal her government source.[13]
Some of the more violent groups were underwritten by a wealthy Saudi exile, Osama bin Laden, who hoped to spread his radical vision of Islamic rule to Muslims everywhere and drive the United States out of the Middle East and Africa.[28]
In 2002, Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote a series of columns[29][30] indirectly suggesting that Dr. Steven Hatfill, a former U.S. Army germ-warfare researcher named as a "person of interest" by the FBI, might be a "likely culprit"[31][32] in the anthrax attacks.[33][34] Dr. Hatfill was never charged with any crime. In 2004, Dr. Hatfill sued the Times and Kristof for libel, claiming defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.[35] After years of proceedings,[36] the case was dismissed in 2007, and the dismissal was upheld on appeal. In 2008, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which refused to grant certiorari, effectively leaving the dismissal in place. The basis for the dismissal was that Dr. Hatfill was a "public figure" and he had not proved malice on the part of the Times.[37]
In 2003, the Times admitted that Jayson Blair, one of its reporters, had committed repeated journalistic fraud over a span of several years.[38] The general professionalism of the paper was questioned, though Blair immediately resigned following the incident. Questions of affirmative action in journalism were also raised,[39][40][41] since Blair is black. The paper's top two editors – Howell Raines, the executive editor, and Gerald M. Boyd, managing editor – resigned their posts following the incident.[42]
In October 2005, Times reporter Judith Miller was released from prison after 85 days, when she agreed to testify to special prosecutorPatrick Fitzgerald’s grand jury after receiving a personal waiver, both on the phone and in writing, of her earlier confidential source agreement with Lewis "Scooter" Libby. No other reporter whose testimony had been sought in the case had received such a direct and particularized release. Her incarceration has helped fuel an effort in Congress to enact a federal shield law, comparable to the state shield laws which protect reporters in 31 of the 50 states. After her second appearance before the grand jury, Miller was released from her contempt of court finding. Miller resigned from the paper on November 9, 2005.[47]
CampusJ
CampusJ Jewish Collegiate News was a website covering Jewish news on college and university campuses with a network of student journalists. In March 2005, CampusJ broke the story that The New York Times had negotiated a deal with Columbia University administrators to exclude student response in an article on academic bias in exchange for exclusive access to a report.[48]
On December 16, 2005, an article by The New York Times revealed that the Bush administration had ordered the National Security Agency to intercept telephone conversations between suspected terrorists in the U.S. and those in other countries without first obtaining court warrants for the surveillance, apparently in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and without the knowledge or consent of the Congress. A federal judge recently held that the plan revealed by the Times was unconstitutional, and hearings have been held on this issue in Congress. The article noted that reporters and editors at the Times had known about the intelligence-gathering program for approximately a year but had, at the request of White House officials, delayed publication to conduct additional reporting. The Justice Department has launched an investigation to determine the sources of the classified information obtained by the Times. The men who reported the stories, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting in 2006.[50]
Because of the lapse in reporting Edward Snowden decided not to supply the New York Times with his information, choosing to go to the Guardian and Washington Post instead.[51]
On December 22, 2006 at the request of the Bush Administration, the paper removed sections of an Op-Ed piece critical of the administration's policy towards Iran which contained publicly available information that Iran cooperated after the 9/11 attacks and offered to negotiate a diplomatic settlement in 2003.[55]
On Monday, September 10, 2007, the Times ran a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org questioning the integrity of General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, entitled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" The Times only charged MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, $65,000 for the advertisement that, according to public relations director Abbe Serphos, normally costs around $181,692, or roughly a 64% discount. Serphos declined to explain the discount.[56]
Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis denied the rate charged indicated a political bias and said it was the paper's policy not to disclose the rate paid by any advertiser. "We do not distinguish the advertising rates based on the political content of the ad," Mathis told Reuters. "The advertising folks did not see the content of the ad before the rate was quoted," she said, adding that there were over 30 different categories of ads with varying rates. Mathis confirmed the open rate for an ad of that size and type was around $181,000. Among reasons for lower rates are advertisers buying in bulk or taking a standby rate, she said. "There are many instances when we have published opinion advertisements that run counter to the stance we take on our own editorial pages," she said.
Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor who blogs on media at buzzmachine.com, said the key question for the Times was could any other political or advocacy group get the same rate under the same circumstances. "The quandary the Times gets stuck in is they don't want to admit you can buy an ad for that rate, no matter who you are," Jarvis said, noting that with print advertising revenues in newspapers generally decline to offer big discounts.
On a more general note, Jarvis said U.S. papers should emulate their counterparts in Britain where, for example, The Guardian makes no effort to hide its liberal stance. "In the U.S., I would argue newspapers should be more transparent and open about the views taken ... and The (New York) Times is liberal," he said.[57]
Advertising Age reported that "MoveOn bought its ad on a 'standby' basis, under which it can ask for a day and placement in the paper but doesn't get any guarantees." A subsequent full-page ad bought by Republican presidential hopefulRudy Giuliani to rebut MoveOn.org's original ad was purchased at the same standby rate. MoveOn later paid The Times the full rate once the newspaper publicly acknowledged that "an advertising sales representative made a mistake."[58]
Corporate-influence concerns
In their book Manufacturing Consent (1988), Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky analyze major U.S. media outlets, with an emphasis on The Times. They believe that a bias exists which is neither liberal nor conservative in nature, but aligned towards the interests of corporations, which own most of these media outlets and also provide the majority of their advertising revenue. The authors explain that this bias functions in all sorts of ways:[59]
"by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict — in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society."[60]
Chomsky and Herman also touch on the importance of this perceived bias in The Times:
"history is what appears in The New York Times archives; the place where people will go to find out what happened is The New York Times. Therefore it's extremely important if history is going to be shaped in an appropriate way, that certain things appear, certain things not appear, certain questions be asked, other questions be ignored, and that issues be framed in a particular fashion."[60]
In their 2007 book Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustice of the Duke Lacrosse Case, KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor, Jr. sharply criticize The New York Times for their editorial judgment and its effect on the case investigation. It says that the original reports by Joe Drape tended to exonerate the accused players, which contradicted Times' editorial stance. This led to Drape's quick dismissal and replacement by Duff Wilson who took a pro prosecution stance.[61]
Also covering the case, sports writer Selena Roberts, made assertions, that "Something happened March 13." Furthermore, Roberts writes, “Players have been forced to give up their DNA, but to the dismay of investigators, none have come forward to reveal an eyewitness account.” Johnson points out that this statement was not true.[citation needed] The captains’ March 28, 2006 statement or examined the defense attorneys’ subsequent press conference both described the captains’ cooperation with police, occurred before she penned her column. The Times never ran a correction.[citation needed] Later Roberts in an interview in the Big Lead said, "I wrote that a crime didn’t have to occur for us to inspect the irrefutable evidence of misogyny and race baiting that went on that night."[62]
Daniel Okrent, former Times ombudsman admitted to the bias in the Times coverage of the case. He said, "It was too delicious a story. It conformed too well to too many preconceived notions of too many in the press: white over black, rich over poor, athletes over non-athletes, men over women, educated over non-educated. Wow. That's a package of sins that really fit the preconceptions of a lot of us."[63]
The February 21, 2008 The New York Times published an article on John McCain's alleged relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman and other involvement with special interest groups.[64] The article received a widespread criticism among both liberals and conservatives, McCain supporters and non-supporters as well as talk radio personalities. Robert S. Bennett, whom McCain had hired to represent him in this matter, defended McCain's character. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the Keating Five scandal that The Times revisited in the article, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee to not pursue charges against McCain.
"And if there is one thing I am absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest and honest man. I recommended to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that there was no evidence against him, and I think for the New York Times to dig this up just shows that Senator McCain's public statement about this is correct. It's a smear job. I'm sorry. "[65]
Former staffer to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton campaigner Lanny Davis said the article "had no merit." Stating that he did not support McCain's bid for the White House, Davis, who had himself lobbied for the same cause Iseman lobbied McCain for, said that McCain only wrote a letter to the FCC to ask them to "act soon" and refused to write a letter that supported the sale of the television station the article talked about.[66] Journalistic observers also criticized the article, albeit in a milder language. Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, suggested that the article does not make clear the nature of McCain's alleged "inappropriate" behavior: "The phrasing is just too vague."[67] The article was later criticized by the White House[68] and by several news organizations including the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board.[69] Commentator Bill O'Reilly raised the question about why the paper had endorsed McCain on January 25, 2008 for the Republican nomination if they had information that alleged an inappropriate relationship.[70] The Boston Globe, owned by the Times, declined to publish the story, choosing instead to run a version of the same story written by the competing Washington Post staff. That version focused almost exclusively on the pervasive presence of lobbyists in McCain's campaign and did not mention the sexual relationship that the Times article hinted at.[71]
In response to the criticism, the Times editor Bill Keller was "surprised by the volume" and "by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision [to publish the article]".[72] The diverse sentiments by the readers were summarized in a separate article by Clark Hoyt, the Timespublic editor, who concluded: "I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."[73]
In September 2008, a McCain senior aide (Steve Schmidt) charged: "Whatever The New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day impugns the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin. ... Everything that is read in The New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective."
In December 2008, Iseman filed a sued The New York Times, alleging that the paper had defamed her by, in her view, falsely implying that she had an illicit romantic relationship with McCain.[74] In February 2009, the suit "was settled without payment and The Times did not retract the article."[75] Unusually, however, The Times agreed to publish a statement from Iseman's lawyers on the Times website.[75]
Alessandra Stanley errors
Alessandra Stanley is a television critic. Complaints have been raised regarding the accuracy of her reporting.[76][77][78][79] Her tribute to Walter Cronkite on July 18, 2009 had eight factual errors.[78][79][80] Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The New York Times described Stanley as "much admired by editors for the intellectual heft of her coverage of television" but "with a history of errors".[76][77] The New York Times printed a correction:
An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite’s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkite’s coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. “The CBS Evening News” overtook “The Huntley-Brinkley Report” on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondents’ reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of “The CBS Evening News” in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor. Because of an editing error, the appraisal also misstated the name of the news agency for which Mr. Cronkite was Moscow bureau chief after World War II. At that time it was United Press, not United Press International.[80]
An earlier contentious wording was on September 5, 2005 in an article on Hurricane Katrina where she wrote "Fox's Geraldo Rivera did his rivals one better: yesterday, he nudged an Air Force rescue worker out of the way so his camera crew could tape him as he helped lift an older woman in a wheelchair to safety." The Times later acknowledged that no nudge was visible on the broadcast tape.[79][81]
Story about fathers
In 2017, the New York Times was criticized for an article, headlined "How Vital Are Women? This Town Found Out as They Left to March," about fathers from Montclair, New Jersey who looked after their children while their wives participated in the Women's March. To some, the article "seemed to reinforce three old-fashioned tropes about gender and parenting: Men can’t handle parenting tasks; men who manage to handle the basics of parenting are exceptional and worthy of a news story; and parenting is fundamentally the work of women."[82] The freelance writer who wrote the story apologized, and the Metro section editor stated: "It was a bad idea from the get-go. It was conceived with the best intentions, but it fell flat. And I regret it."[82]
The newspaper's coverage of India has been heavily criticized by Sumit Ganguly, a professor of political science, for its "hectoring" and "patronizing" tone towards India. He finds anti-India bias in coverage of the Kashmir Conflict, the Hyde Act and other India-related matters.[83] Similar charges of racism against Indians have been levelled by the Huffington Post.[84]
United States lawmaker Kumar P. Barve described a recent editorial on India as full of "blatant and unprofessional factual errors or omissions" and having a "haughty, condescending, arrogant and patronizing" tone.[85] In September 2014, The New York Times published a cartoon showing a stereotypical Indian turban-wearing man with a cow knocking at the door of an "elite space club". This was their response to recent accomplishments by the Indian Space Research Organization.[86] The cartoon "drew immediate criticism for being racist in content, and for engaging in classist and racist stereotyping".[87]
The New York Times has also opposed India's entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group[88] while the US administration led by President Barack Obama was actively supporting India's membership.[89] This view was criticized for Indophobic bias by several western and Indian experts on nuclear issues.[90][91] The New York Times has also published editorials attacking traditional Indian dress sari as a "conspiracy by Hindu Nationalists",[92] which was widely criticized for ignorance and grossly representing the sari[93][94] and for promoting Orientalism.[95][96]
In March 2019, The New York Times received sharp criticism when it referred to Pulwama suicide bombing, which was carried out by the Pakistani terrorist outfit JeM as an "explosion". The headline of the article read "In India's Election Season, an Explosion Interrupts Modi's Slump". The wording was later corrected after receiving a massive critical response, including from the former Pakistani ambassador to the US.[97]
Abu Huzaifa al-Kanadi
Caliphate, a podcast for the New York Times, has received numerous criticism after Abu Huzaifa al-Kanadi admitted on the podcast that he “murdered people” while he was fighting for the Islamic State group.[98] Numerous conservatives called for action against him after his statement, including Candice Bergen.[99] She criticized the liberal government after not ordering law enforcement against him. Bergen also called for Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale to reveal whether the government knows where he is or not, but Goodale stated that it was the “opposition of keeping Canadians safe”.[100] Huzaifa also received concerns from television journalist Diana Swain that he may be “lying” to The New York Times or CBC News.[101]
Anti-British sentiment
In January 2020, Douglas Murray claimed that the New York Times was "waging a culture war vendetta against" the United Kingdom "but in doing so it is waging a campaign of misinformation against its own readers".[102] Kelly Jane Torrance at The Spectator, said "Ever since Britain voted to leave the European Union, the Gray Lady — as the paper is known, thanks to its pompous and earnest tone — has become relentlessly critical of the UK". Torrance went on to say "If you were to read only the NYT, you’d think there was little hope for backward, bigoted Britain".[103]
Publishing leaked photos from the Manchester bombing
On May 24, 2017, The New York Times caused outrage among the British police and government when it published leaked photos showing the scene of the Manchester Arena bombing. Counter terror police chiefs said the leak undermined their investigation and victims' and witnesses' confidence. The New York Times published photos it says were gathered by UK authorities at the scene of the attack, including the remnants of a backpack, nuts and screws, and a device identified as a "possible detonator". Greater Manchester Police were said to be "furious" and said they would stop sharing information with the US. President Donald Trump the next day in a NATO summit condemned the media leaks, calling it "deeply troubling" and a "grave threat to our national security". The New York Times defended its decision to publish the photos, saying they were "neither graphic nor disrespectful of victims".[104][105]
Austerity
In May 2018, Peter S. Goodman wrote a piece called, “In Britain, austerity is changing everything”,[106] with the author basing his story on a brief trip to Prescot in Lancashire. Douglas Murray described the column as a "warped idea of the true state of a nation".[107] Goodman claimed that the local fire station had been shut, despite a new one just having just been unveiled.[108] He also claimed the local museum had “receded into history” when the Prescot Museum was still open to the public.[109] Goodman later claimed on social media that actual facts may not be true, nevertheless, the “perception” was correct.[110] Kelly Jane Torrance at The Spectator, said "Goodman’s dispatch could be dismissed as an egregious bit of bad reporting".[111]
Yorkshire pudding
In May 2018 the New York Times came under criticism, including from the tourist office of the city of York, for describing Yorkshire pudding as a "large, fluffy pancake" and recommending it be served with "syrup, preserves, confectioners' sugar or cinnamon sugar". A presenter for the BBC stated that the Yorkshire pudding's history was longer than that of the USA.[112]
London restaurants
In August 2018, Robert Draper alleged the UK had been subsisting mostly "on porridge and boiled mutton" until very recently.[113]Douglas Murray dismissed the attack as archaic and wrong.[114] Draper had also frequently referred to London'sMayfair as "Mayfield" in the article that had to be corrected at a later date.[115]
Petty crime
In December 2018, the Twitter account of the New York Times were asking people to submit stories to the paper if they had “experienced a petty crime in London”.[116]The Guardian described the public response on Twitter as "a sarcastic deluge".[117]
Claims of a racism and extremism
In May 2018, Maya Goodfellow, a writer for the New York Times and The Guardian wrote a piece titled "A New Face Won’t Change the British Government’s Racist Heart". Goodfellow claimed that the appointment of Sajid Javid as Chancellor of the Exchequer became "a shield for a government’s institutionally racist policies". In the piece, Goodfellow provided no evidence of any alleged racist policies.[118] Kelly Jane Torrance at The Spectator said the piece "focused on Javid’s race and decried the ‘cruel’ and ‘inhumane’ immigration policies of the Conservative government. It did not note that immigration is still running at record levels.[119] In March 2019,Sam Byers wrote a piece for the New York Times titled "Britain Is Drowning Itself in Nostalgia". Byers described the UK as “poisoned” with “colonial arrogance” and suggested it was a "solipsistic backwater".[120]Douglas Murray compared the piece to a work of fiction.[121] In June 2019, sociological theorist William Davies wrote a piece called "A Fanatical Sect Has Hijacked British Politics".[122]Douglas Murray argued "What was this fanatical sect? ISIS? Extinction Rebellion? Followers of Krusty the Clown? No, the paper disappointingly revealed that the people in question were Brexit supporters and the evidence that they had hijacked Britishpolitics was that they had persuaded the UK Government to exit the European Union."[123]
Royal Family
When Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex announced they were leaving their royal duties, Afua Hirsch wrote a piece headlined "Black Britons know why Meghan wants out". In the piece she said "Meghan’s decision to join the family that is the symbolic heart of the establishment responsible for this troubled history was perplexing to many black British people". [124]Douglas Murray claimed that the article was "not backed up by any facts".[125]
British beaches
In June 2020, a piece by Ceylan Yeğinsu claimed, that during a heatwave, British people have "cavorted by the hundreds in swamps".[126] After The Times in the UK, called them out on the tone and factual error, the article was subsequently changed. In a correction, The New York Times stated "People flocked to parks, beaches and streams, not swamps".[127]
Putin-Trump kiss cartoon
After the Times tweeted a cartoon portraying Trump and Putin as a gay lovers, LGBT activist and Democratic Rep. Brian Sims said it's time to stop the homophobic jokes.[128] American transgender activist Jeffrey Marsh said "to have a group that's as well-established as The New York Times personally attacking you feels horrendous."[129]
A spokesperson for The Times defended the animation.[129]
Anti-Chinese sentiment
Chinese netizens reacted violently to quotation symbols which were put around "terrorist" by the New York Times when describing the 2014 Kunming attack. This was the same style used by most international publications as well as the US government.[130]
Outdated figures about the carbon output of China were used by the New York Times in a 2015 article.[131]
Hiring of Sarah Jeong
In August 2018, The New York Times hired Sarah Jeong to join its editorial board as lead writer on technology, commencing in September.[132] The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014.[133][134] Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced, and that she regretted adopting this tactic.[133] The Times stated that it had reviewed her social media history before hiring her, and that it did not condone the posts.[133][134]
Accusations of anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitic cartoons
On April 25, 2019, The New York Times's international edition included a cartoon featuring U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump was shown wearing a kippah and Netanyahu was displayed as Trump's dog wearing a collar with the Star of David. The Israeli edition of The Times was published at the end of Passover. After criticism from public and religious figures, The Times admitted to using "anti-Semitic tropes".[135]
On April 29, The New York Times came under scrutiny again for publishing another anti-Semitic cartoon featuring Netanyahu.[136]
Anti-Semitic political editor
On August 22, 2019, a politics desk editor at The New York Times, Tom Wright-Piersanti, was revealed to have posted several anti-Semitic tweets while working at another outlet prior to joining the Times. He additionally posted several anti-Indian tweets as well. His tweets included phrases such as "Crappy Jew Year," and "Jew police." The Times reconsidered his future, but ultimately decided to continue his employment.[137][138]
Accusation of plagiarism
According to the Moscow Times Kremlin-critical Russian journalist Roman Badanin, editor-in-chief of independent Russian media outlet Proekt (Project), said that at least two of the New York Times articles criticizing Russia, which won the Pulitzer Prize in May 2020, repeated findings of Proekt's articles published a few months before.[139][bettersourceneeded]
Joanne Rowling, better known by her pen name J. K. Rowling, is a British author, screenwriter, producer, and philanthropist. She is best known for writing the Harry Potter fantasy series, which has won multiple awards and sold more than 500 million copies, becoming the best-selling book series in history. The books are the basis of a popular film series, over which Rowling had overall approval on the scripts and was a producer on the final films. She also writes crime fiction under the pen name Robert Galbraith.
The Washington Times is an American conservative daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C., that covers general interest topics with a particular emphasis on national politics. Its broadsheet daily edition is distributed throughout the District of Columbia and in parts of Maryland and Virginia. A weekly tabloid edition aimed at a national audience is also published.
John Sidney McCain III was an American politician and military officer, who served as a United States Senator for Arizona from 1987 until his death in 2018. He previously served two terms in the United States House of Representatives and was the Republican nominee for president of the United States in the 2008 election, which he lost to Barack Obama.
Walter Leland Cronkite Jr. was an American broadcast journalist who served as anchorman for the CBS Evening News for 19 years (1962–1981). During the 1960s and 1970s, he was often cited as "the most trusted man in America" after being so named in an opinion poll.
Newsweek is an American weekly news magazine founded in 1933. Newsweek was a widely distributed newsweekly through the 20th century, with many notable editors-in-chief throughout the years. Newsweek was acquired by The Washington Post Company in 1961, under whose ownership it remained until 2010. Between 2008 and 2012, Newsweek experienced financial difficulties, leading to the cessation of print publication and a transition to all-digital format at the end of 2012. The print edition then relaunched in March 2014 under different ownership.
Xinhua News Agency or New China News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. Xinhua is the biggest and most influential media organization in China, as well as the largest news agency in the world in terms of correspondents worldwide. Xinhua is a ministry-level institution subordinate to the State Council and is the highest ranking state media organ in the country alongside the People's Daily. Its president is a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.
Vanity Fair is a monthly magazine of popular culture, fashion, and current affairs published by Condé Nast in the United States.
Robert Stacy McCain is an American conservative journalist, writer, and blogger. McCain is a former assistant national editor and reporter for The Washington Times and co-author of the 2006 book Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party. He is proprietor of the blog, The Other McCain.
Alessandra Stanley is an American journalist. As of 2019, she is the co-founder of a weekly newsletter "for worldly cosmopolitans" called Air Mail, alongside former Vanity Fair editor-in-chief Graydon Carter.
Aaron Klein is a strategic and communications advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He also served as strategist for Netanyahu's successful 2020 election campaign. He was previously an American weekend radio talk show host, author, and senior reporter and Mideast bureau chief for Breitbart News and a weekly columnist for The Jewish Press.
The 2008 Republican presidential primaries were the selection process by which voters of the Republican Party chose its nominee for President of the United States in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Senator John McCain of Arizona was selected as the nominee through a series of primary elections and caucuses culminating in the 2008 Republican National Convention held from Monday, September 1, through Thursday, September 4, 2008, in St. Paul, Minnesota. President George W. Bush was ineligible to be elected to a third term due to the term limits established by the 22nd Amendment.
The Mitt Romney presidential campaign of 2008 began on January 3, 2007, two days before Mitt Romney left office as governor of Massachusetts, when he filed to form an exploratory committee with the Federal Election Commission to run for President of the United States as a Republican in the 2008 election. Subsequently, on February 13, 2007, he formally announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. He did so at the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Michigan, as an emblem of American ingenuity.
The 2008 presidential campaign of John McCain, the longtime senior U.S. Senator from Arizona, was launched with an informal announcement on February 28, 2007, during a live taping of the Late Show with David Letterman, and formally launched at an event on April 25, 2007. His second candidacy for the Presidency of the United States, he had previously run for his party's nomination in the 2000 primaries and was considered as a potential running mate for his party's nominee, then-Governor George W. Bush of Texas. After winning a majority of delegates in the Republican primaries of 2008, on August 29, leading up to the convention, McCain selected Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate for Vice President. Five days later, at the 2008 Republican National Convention, McCain was formally selected as the Republican Party presidential nominee in the 2008 presidential election.
On February 21, 2008, in the midst of John McCain's campaign in the 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries, both The New York Times and the Washington Post published articles detailing rumors of an improper relationship between John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman.
Meghan Marguerite McCain is an American columnist, author, and television personality. She has worked for ABC News, Fox News, MSNBC, and serves as a co-host of The View since 2017.
Senator John McCain, the Republican Party nominee, was endorsed or supported by some members of the Democratic Party and by some political figures holding liberal views in the 2008 United States presidential election. McCain Democrat and McCainocrat are terms applied to Democrats who supported McCain.
Stephen Edward Schmidt is an American communications and public affairs strategist who has worked on Republican political campaigns, including those of President George W. Bush, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Arizona Senator John McCain. He is best known for pushing McCain to select Sarah Palin as his running mate. He specialized in "message development and strategy".
U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a member of the U.S. Congress from 1983 until his death in office in 2018, a two-time U.S. presidential candidate, and the nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, took positions on many political issues through his public comments, his presidential campaign statements, and his senatorial voting record.
Sarah Palin, while serving as Governor of Alaska, was nominated as the first female candidate of the Republican Party for Vice President of the United States. Following the nomination, her public image came under close media scrutiny, particularly regarding her religious perspective on public life, her socially conservative views, and a perceived lack of experience. Palin's experience in foreign and domestic politics came under criticism among conservatives as well as liberals following her nomination. A poll taken by Rasmussen Reports just after the Republican National Convention in the first week of September 2008 found that Palin was more popular than either Barack Obama or John McCain; however, this perception later reversed. At the same time, Palin became more popular among Republicans than McCain. A February 2010 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed 71% of Americans felt Palin lacked the qualifications necessary to be President of the United States.
Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, known as Joe the Plumber, is an American conservative activist and commentator. He gained national attention during the 2008 U.S. presidential election when, during a videotaped campaign stop in Ohio by then Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama, Wurzelbacher raised concerns that Obama's tax policy would increase taxes on small business owners. Wurzelbacher is a member of the Republican Party.
↑ "Margaret Sullivan". The New York Times. September 24, 2014. Archived from the original on September 23, 2015. Retrieved September 28, 2014. Margaret Sullivan is the fifth public editor appointed by The New York Times. ... The public editor’s office also handles questions and comments from readers and investigates matters of journalistic integrity. The public editor works independently, outside of the reporting and editing structure of the newspaper; her opinions are her own.
↑ "The Public Editor Signs Off". The New York Times. June 2, 2017. Archived from the original on February 7, 2018. Retrieved April 5, 2018. And who will be watching, on this subject or anything else, if they don’t acquit themselves well? At The Times, it won’t be the public editor. As announced on Wednesday, that position is being eliminated, making this my last column. Media pundits and many readers this week were questioning the decision to end this role, fearing that without it, no one will have the authority, insider perspective or ability to demand answers from top Times editors. There’s truth in that. But it overlooks a larger issue.
↑ "The Times and Iraq: A Sample of the Coverage". New York Times. Archived from the original on July 11, 2017. Retrieved May 21, 2017. "sampling of articles published by The Times about the decisions that led the United States into the war in Iraq, and especially the issue of Iraq's weapons"
↑ Franklin Foer. "The Source of the Trouble". New York magazine. Archived from the original on December 2, 2016. Retrieved September 28, 2014. Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller’s series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped the New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war.
↑ "New York Times Editor: Losing Snowden Scoop 'Really Painful'". National Public Radio. June 5, 2014. Archived from the original on September 18, 2014. Retrieved September 28, 2014. But Snowden already knew the one place he didn't trust: The New York Times. He went instead to reporters working for The Guardian and The Washington Post, each of which posted the first in a series of breathtaking revelations one year ago
↑ Claudia Parsons (September 13, 2007). "NY Times criticized for ad attacking top US general". Reuters. Archived from the original on October 13, 2007. Retrieved September 13, 2007. An ad criticizing the top U.S. general in Iraq raised charges on Thursday that The New York Times slashed its advertising rates for political reasons -- an accusation denied by the paper.
1 2 Clark Hoyt (August 1, 2009). "How Did This Happen?". New York Times. Archived from the original on July 9, 2011. Retrieved August 6, 2009. The Times published an especially embarrassing correction on July 22, fixing seven errors in a single article — an appraisal of Walter Cronkite, the CBS anchorman famed for his meticulous reporting. The newspaper had wrong dates for historic events; gave incorrect information about Cronkite’s work, his colleagues and his program’s ratings; misstated the name of a news agency, and misspelled the name of a satellite.
1 2 "Alessandra Stanley Corrected Hard". Gawker.com. Archived from the original on December 27, 2009. Retrieved December 29, 2009. There are corrections and then there are Corrections, and error-prone New York Times mistaker Alessandra Stanley got corrected today. For the second time. For the same Walter Cronkite story.
1 2 Alessandra Stanley (July 17, 2009). "Cronkite's Signature: Approachable Authority (correction appended)". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 31, 2011. Retrieved December 29, 2009. An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite’s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated ...
↑ Writer, Sharanya Haridas; Mumbai-raised, Journalist; dream, Manhattan-residing Accidental Author-Publisher-Entrepreneur I. am Guy Kawasaki's (September 30, 2014). "The 'New York Times' Publishes Racist Comic About India's Space Mission". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on September 15, 2016. Retrieved July 26, 2016.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
