Oh yes, this one data point completely demolishes the argument that the major media is left-leaning and unreliable.

Not.

Well, of course it doeesn't. But if you were constructing an argument from the ground up--and making it as user-friendly as possible--where would you start?

That's the thing I can't quite figure out: where one would begin. It would help if the NYT had its own version of Patterico: at least there would be a concentration of the data all in one place. But how would one structure such an undertaking?

So Fox was NOT spreading an unsubstantiated rumor(they were talking politics, according to the author) and they are a-holes? And didn't CNN spread the unsub rumors, before they reported the facts? And that makes them "pre-eminent"???? I wish someone would come up with an injection to make up for a deficiency of linear thinking.... Maybe if reporters weren't trying to overhear conversations(or one part thereof) or using modified scanners to intercept communications...or would wait for the officials at the scene to make announcements---this wouldn't happen. Nope. It doesn't wash. Back to kicking them in the balls--if only they had them!

Late-Breaking News.....CNN is reproting on the sighting of a Giant Sand Squid. No reports of casualties....YET!!!! NYTs in holding pattern...

Late-Breaking News.....CNN is reporting on the sighting of a Giant Sand Squid. No reports of casualties....YET!!!! NYTs in holding pattern...

i'm just not sure he's right actually. i was up, had fox on, the story broke around 2 a.m. during the rerun of special report. maybe they were a few seconds behind, i don't know. don't have cnn.

I truly love that sand squid.

I have an idea...what about "No Official Word" or "Waiting..."and leave it at that? Recap the rumors, if you must. Can't we wait? The Chicago Tribune is reporting today(Thursday) that the early edition of the NYT got it wrong, too. No 'awards" to go around on this story. plenty of blame.

If you use the media standard that they use for Bush and WMD's then the answer is clear.

They LIED.

Re the supposed excellence of CNN, you might cite Eason Jordan's remarks about that network's handling of reporting from Iraq.

I'd also note that "Fox" and "conservative radio" are totally irrelevant to the opinions of many of us whom this individual would doubtless categorize as being on the Right. I for one don't watch much TV, and Fox news almost never. I don't enjoy radio talk shows; indeed, my car radio broke about a year ago and I haven't bothered to get it fixed.

Here's some background.

I'd say if they couldn't confirm it, don't print it/put it on the air. The responsible thing to do considering the situation. It should have headlined "Unable to confirm if there are any survivors" with "families were informed they were alive" on paragraph 33 instead of a headline of "12 of 13 Alive" with "unable to confirm" in paragraph 33. They decided they wanted a scoop instead of acting responsibly.