The New York Times retracted its smear of Ron Paul

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by TheDudeofLife, Dec 27, 2007.

  1. http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/

    December 26, 2007, 8:24 pm
    Editors’ Note: The Ron Paul Vid-Lash
    By The New York Times

    A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups 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 original 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 original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.
     
  2. maxpi

    maxpi

    Did they do the usual "smear on big reader day with prominently displayed article" and "retract when nobody is reading the thing in tiny article" stunt? I'm assuming that the elites will not allow Paul in office, so to me, the most interesting part of his campaign will be about how they shut him out...
     
  3. This kind of sloppy smear gets published because it fits the liberal template, eg conservative equals nutcase skinhead white supremacist. As a result it doesn't get fact-checked and dubious sources are readily accepted.

    Just another example of the pervasive liberal bias in the mainstream media.
     
  4. Blaming everything on liberals again. When do you guys learn to take some responsibility? Do conservatives nowadays also have the victim complex?

    Do you call Fox News liberal media? Do you call Bill Kristol a liberal? He clearly called Ron Paul "anti-American" and "crackpot."
    <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0rduigENzHo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0rduigENzHo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
     
  5. Turok

    Turok

    JB3:
    >Do conservatives nowadays also have the victim complex?

    Uh - Yeah! Especially AAA.

    JB
     
  6. Speaking of smears, here is a hilarious one:

    Ron Paul Race Smear Erased?
    http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

    This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

    Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”

    Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.


    So these newsletters were printed with Ron Paul's name as the author. I would respect him more if he simply stood his ground and said he believed what he wrote. Or alternative if he took responsibility and apologized for it. Either way would be better than being dishonest and claiming that he didn't know these columns were written with his name on it. It doesn't sound like the Ron Paul you guys are promoting.

    Is the GOP now the party of irresponsibility?
     
  7. It's kind of ironic that it's the libertarian(Ron Paul's) wing of the republican party that keeps talking about absolute personal responsiblity and absolute business freedom (which includes the freedom to publish erroneous information and even deliberately lie). Then when all of a sudden they are the ones who need to accept responsibility and when big business hurts their feelings they complain and whine just like the liberals.
     
  8. There is a vast difference between voicing an opinion, which Kristol did, and posting something as fact when it is both wrong and defamatory. My point is that liberals find it so easy to believe that a conservative like Paul would be aligned with white supremacists that they probably didn't do the sort of fact-checking they would do if the same allegations were made about, say Bill clinton.
     
  9. Turok

    Turok

    JB3:
    >I would respect him more if he simply stood his ground
    >and said he believed what he wrote. Or alternative if he
    >took responsibility and apologized for it. Either way would
    >be better than being dishonest and claiming that he didn't
    >know these columns were written with his name on it.

    You clearly are saying that he WAS the actual author of those writings -- I have seen no evidence that conflicts with his story that he carelessly allowed others to contribute to his newletter in his name.

    Have you found evidence to support your position?

    JB
     
  10. I am not aware of Ron Paul or anyone else on the conservative side advocating complete freedom to publish defamatory lies about people. The landmark First Amendment case that gave the media their current freedom to defame public figures with almost total impunity was N. Y. Times v. Sullivan. The NYT was the one asking for freedom to libel people.

    Conservatives do place a lot of value on free speech and reject government control of political discussions, whether it is under the guise of campaign finance laws or the "fairness doctrine." Liberals were all for freedom of expression when they controlled the media completely, but now that there is an alternative media, they suddenly find it threatening.
     
    #10     Dec 27, 2007