Does the NY Times EVER fact check?

It also said that Salazar had the WR in the marathon. He never did.

Other than stating that Salazar ran 2:09.33, when he actually ran 2:09.41, what part of the story that you posted is inaccurate?

worst paper on earth wrote:

"Salazar took a break during his senior year to call his shot at the New York City Marathon in 1980, promising to run a sub-2:10, the standard for a world-class performance. He made good on the vow, winning the race in 2:09:33, then the fastest debut marathon ever"

If you read the Times, you deserve the Times. Don't they still claim Oswald shot JFK?

And fox news never makes mistakes.

At least the NY Times will run a correction - unlike fox news.

one time the new york times gave the correct results of all the pro wrestling matches in monday mornings edition and sure enough monday night all the results wound up being correct.

gordy124 wrote:

And fox news never makes mistakes.

At least the NY Times will run a correction - unlike fox news.

i love this logic:

we are really crappy, but its ok because others are really crappy too.

gordy124 wrote:

And fox news never makes mistakes.

At least the NY Times will run a correction - unlike fox news.

That's not true. The NYT is notorious for burying its corrections deep in the newspaper.

yeah sam, they're really displaying their liberal bias there. it's probably all part of some leftist conspiracy to brainwash the world. keep reading the Post

The corrections are on page 2. Deep in the newspaper indeed.

The Right Wing criticism of the NY Times is ridiculous, boring, and transparent. The NY Post...the paper in which Bill O'Reilly's column appears - insults people in headlines and first paragraphs and yet is somehow never criticized for its bias or lack of objectivity. And I guess missing a marathon time by eight seconds is a much bigger crime, though, than a front page headline naming the incorrect VP nominee, which is what the Post did. Yeah, sure it is.

Ya gotta love the Post headlines!!

Headless Body in Topless Bar- 1983 NYPOST

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/NYPost.jpg/175px-NYPost.jpg

reality is fun wrote:

Don't they still claim Oswald shot JFK?

Yes, they do. The Times was also one of the principle mouthpieces for the CIA's lies during Operation Mockingbird:

Many sources claim that Operation Mockingbird continues at the Times to this day, a claim I find VERY easy to believe.

NYTimes wrote:

It also said that Salazar had the WR in the marathon. He never did.

Not true. He absolutely did have it--until the NYC course was found to be slightly short. You can interpret that any way you like, but the bottom line is that Salazar's performance was recognized for some time as the WR.

old tymer wrote:

NYTimes wrote:

It also said that Salazar had the WR in the marathon. He never did.

Not true. He absolutely did have it--until the NYC course was found to be slightly short. You can interpret that any way you like, but the bottom line is that Salazar's performance was recognized for some time as the WR.

Thanks. I was just about to post that, and you beat me to it.

Oswald did shoot JFK

No conspiracy theories are accurate

Okay ...what's next?

Yellowbeard wrote:

Oswald did shoot JFK

No conspiracy theories are accurate

Okay ...what's next?

This is the part where you tell us there are WMDs in Iraq, and that Tom Cruise is straight.

reality is fun wrote:

This is the part where you tell us there are WMDs in Iraq, and that Tom Cruise is straight.

The NY Times did famously and repeatedly claim there were WMDs in Iraq:

That may not be up there with claiming Oswald shot JFK, but it's close...it isn't just that they don't fact check, it's that they LIE---over and over again.

So the NY Times claimed there were WMDs in Iraq, something that would help the Republican cause for war.Guess that's just another example of the liberal bias in the media, right?

yes they suck that much wrote:

That may not be up there with claiming Oswald shot JFK, but it's close...it isn't just that they don't fact check, it's that they LIE---over and over again.

Their liberal bias has been shown time and time again. Their former ombudsman even admitted this. That is not the issue. The issue is do they fact check. The answer is apparently not.