New York Times retracts smear

[jimbabb]

http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/the-ron-paul-vid-lash/

Editors’ Note: The post below, which appeared on The Medium on Monday, contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist” Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.

------------------
The Times welcomes comments and suggestions, or complaints about errors that warrant correction. Messages on news coverage can be e-mailed to [email protected] or left toll-free at 1-888-NYT-NEWS (1-888-698-6397). Comments on editorials may be e-mailed to [email protected] or faxed to (212) 556-3622.

Readers dissatisfied with a response or concerned about the paper's journalistic integrity may reach the public editor at [email protected] or (212) 556-7652.
------------------​

My questions:

1) Has Virginia Heffernan been fired yet?

2) Will there be an ethics investigation to uncover all the accomplices in the NYT management?

3) What will the NYT do to regain the public's trust after this incident?

Jim Babb

 

[Paulitician]

1) Has Virginia Heffernan been fired yet?

Probably promoted...

2) Will there be an ethics investigation to uncover all the accomplices in the NYT management?

Probably not...

3) What will the NYT do to regain the public's trust after this incident?

Probably nothing. They don't deserve to have public trust anyway.

 

[lbadragan]

Retracting the smear fixes maybe 5% of the damage they've done. How many other "journalists" have run with this story based on the NYT article? Job well done NYT. Now go to hell.

 

[ronpaulitician]

I'm not one to boycot, but this seems to be something that the NYTimes needs to take more seriously than something that can be fixed with a simple "sorry".

I agree with asking the questions asked in the original post.

 

[Think12345]

Maybe push them for an official apology in the actual paper?

 

[thisisgiparti]

the mind boggles that this ever ran as a story to begin with. it is probably the most outrageous retraction I've ever read.

1 - wrong facts about the donor.

2 - Paul never met White or attended these meetings, so it is a lie.

3 - the Times never called Paul before printing what is essentially libel.

 

[bgky4paul]

The good news is that the post ran during Christmas week, so probably fewer people saw it than normally would have in the first place. I'm glad to see the NYT post a quick retraction. That's realistically all we are likely to get from them. But, by all means, please continue to give 'em hell!

 

[thisisgiparti]

Christmas week

The good news is that the post ran during Christmas week, so probably fewer people saw it than normally would have in the first place. I'm glad to see the NYT post a quick retraction. That's realistically all we are likely to get from them. But, by all means, please continue to give 'em hell!

Thousands of people are reading this, as they commute over the holidays via train or plane. Does anyone know if Mr. Lepard ran his ad at this time? I'm just curious how much of this "speedy retraction" had to do with a demanded refund and the threat of a lawsuit. I know if I paid 100K for an ad endorsing my candidate, and the newspaper ran a bold-faced lie and intended hit piece on their "blog" at that same time I would be FURIOUS.

 

[me3]

Not good enough. I emailed them to mention the cancellation of my subscription. Said I would not support slander.

Was this in the print edition? A large and obvious retraction is needed. It is wholly unacceptable to print this over the holidays, and wait two days to come up with an editor's note.

 

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

I knew that story was bullshit when I read it.

That Virginia ummm lady would not respond and seemed to have just posted it and disappeared.

 

[FreedomLover]

I knew that story was bullshit when I read it.

That Virginia ummm lady would not respond and seemed to have just posted it and disappeared.

hit and run.

These types of stories are digusting. Retractions are almost never seen by the people who originally saw the article.

Are there any good reporters left these days?

 

[Scaryclouds]

Not good enough. I emailed them to mention the cancellation of my subscription. Said I would not support slander.

Was this in the print edition? A large and obvious retraction is needed. It is wholly unacceptable to print this over the holidays, and wait two days to come up with an editor's note.

FYI...
Slander = spoken
Libel = written

I'm not trying to be a grammar Nazi, just informing you of the difference for future use.

 

[Pharoah]

Among the many great comments in defense of Ron Paul, was this hilarious rebuttal:

Finally, Lifson would have to hold that Paul has spent the last 20 years in Congress reigning in all of his white supremacist furor, while faking the most libertarian platform in GOP memory, on the off-chance that he may someday become president, whence he can unleash his true socialist white supremacist agenda.

 

[stevedasbach]

Copy and save the retraction and link to the retraction. Post in the comment section of every website that contains any of the Stormfront-Bill White smears. The Times rarely publishes retractions like this -- we can use it to debunk all of these smears.

We may not give the Times much credibility but others do, especially the MSM. This retraction will carry more weight than any denial from Paul or his campaign.