The Staff at The NY Times Had One Job

Accuracy is apparently not an issue in NYC. ‘A Team of Editors’.

This is of course about the infamous “list of (some of) the dead” from COVID-19 published by the New York Times. Their “staff devoted hours to the project.”

Scarcely five minutes after their list was published, people on Twitter began pointing out an obvious error: Jordan Haynes, 27, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was the sixth name on the Times list, but he did not die of COVID-19. He was a homicide victim, whose body was found in a car in a wooded area near Interstate 380. Exactly how the “team of editors” made such a colossal blunder, we don’t know, but they’ve deleted Haynes’ name from the list and promised to publish a correction tomorrow.

So either they just selected a random set of dead people from “flyover country” and trusted that no one would check their work, or they really are that stupid. Or both.

Because a Couple of Media Types Proving They Are Morons Never Gets Old

Brian Williams of MSNBC and Mara Gay of the New York Times proved they don’t understand numbers. This won’t stop them from lecturing the voters on economic issues. STUMP – How Not To Be A Dumbass: Media Innumeracy Edition.

Once again, the 2 geniuses of the media world thought that if you divide 500 million dollars (what Bloomberg spent on his campaign) by 327 million Americans, you get $1,000,000. In reality (where I like to live) you get a buck fifty, more or less. Not even enough for a coffee at my favorite coffee shop.

Obviously, the math here is spectacularly off. If Michael Bloomberg had divided the money he spent on his presidential run evenly among Americans, we would each have got $1.53, not $1 million. For Bloomberg to give $1 million to each American, he would have to be worth $327 trillion (in cash), which, for context, is around 17 times American GDP and about five-and-a-half thousand times what he’s actually worth. The scale of the error here is galactic.

Galactically stupid about sums up these two talking heads. Who are convinced that they are smarter than you. (They aren’t.)

I like the referenced post because meep includes a lot of references to things like “What math do the journalists really need to understand?” and “Numbers are not magic.” Not that journalists will bother to learn about numbers before they lecture us on the economic realities of all the political promises coming out of the Left.

Promises that devolve into why we can’t give everyone $1000 per month based on nothing, or just “taxing the rich.” Or they tried that in Venezuela, and it didn’t work out well in the long run.

There are also some links at the bottom of meep’s post to previous math-related insanity. Like the two 12-inch pizzas versus one 18-inch pizza problem from early 2019, and long list of “don’t be a dumbass” posts running back through the years.

I forgot to include a link to my original post, so here it is.

Want to Understand How Americans Really See Unemployment?

Look at the U-6 numbers, not the “official” U-3 numbers. Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization.

By the U-3 numbers, the January seasonally adjusted unemployment number was 3.6 percent. The raw number was 4.0 percent. Pretty good, since the last time I looked, 5 percent (on U-3) was theoretically full employment.

The U-6 number, on the other hand was 6.9 percent, seasonally adjusted, and 7.7 percent raw. Still it is way down from its peak of 17.2 percent in April of 2010.

Hat tip to The First Street Journal, and Déjà vu all over again. The Elites hate Sanders almost as much as the hated Trump in 2016. Case in point David Brooks of The New York Times.

Mr Brooks’ argument boils down to one simple thing, the old Wizard of Id cartoon in which the town crier yells, “The peasants are revolting,” to which the king replies, “You can say that again.”

Mr Brooks, whose net worth is estimated at $9 million, is definitely not one of the peasants. His political instincts are at least moderately conservative, but he was perfectly fine with 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, saying that she was determined, industrious even though somewhat unimaginative. To him, Mrs Clinton, though she’d doubtlessly have been further to the left than he would have liked, would still be a safe muddle at least somewhat close to the middle. For the patricians, a muddle in the middle is just what they want. It keeps them nice and safe and protects their status. Had he been in the Continental Congress on July 2, 1776, when Congress officially declared our independence, he would have voted against it.

Click thru for the cartoon. And more.

It’s Different When the Democrats Do It

NY Slimes. I include a link for completeness. Justice Dept. Is Said to Open Criminal Inquiry Into Its Own Russia Investigation.

The move is likely to open the attorney general to accusations that he is trying to deliver a political victory for President Trump.

So this criminal investigation is politically motivated. That criminal investigation – which was based on lie, paid for by various Democrats, and expounded on by the Deep State – was not politically motivated.

Does anyone even take the NYT seriously anymore?

New York Times Doesn’t Like the First Amendment

How does that work? NY Times Wants To Crack Down On Freedom Of The Press Over Noxious Language.

Oh, wait, wait, no, sorry, they just want Other People punished for daring to use their Constitutional Republic protected Free Speech right

Because unless you are the NY Slimes, you shouldn’t have a permit to exercise Free Speech, or something. Lot’s of details at the link.

New York Times and Its “Airplanes took aim” Insanity

Facepalm X 2Media bias? What media bias? New York Times deletes Sept. 11 ‘planes took aim’ tweet.

The tweet in question…

18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center. Today, families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2000 people died.

Because actually admitting who did what on 9/11 would be against all the rules of Political Correctness. Or something.

The tweet was deleted. The story was edited. Because reasons.

Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades-Ha told iMediaEthics by e-mail, “We have no comment beyond the follow up tweet and acknowledgement,” and pointed to its tweets.

And yes, I realize this is yesterday’s news, but I just love having a record of the NY Slimes and their continuing efforts to rewrite any bit of history that they don’t like.

This Must Be a Sign of End-times. Or Something

Animal from Animal Magnetism has the surprising news as part of Animal’s Hump Day News.

HOLY CRAP! That notorious right-wing rag, the New York Times, has taken the official editorial position that there is, in fact, a crisis at our southern border. The article still argues against a border barrier and takes some cheap shots at President Trump but the underlying message is still yes, we need to do something.

New York Times Has a Story on Venezuela That Ignores Socialism

I suppose it couldn’t be any other way, really, since they love socialism. What Is Happening in Venezuela? How It Got Here and Why It Matters.

The closest that they get is admitting that .gov controls industry. Which is what socialism/communism are all about. Free markets? They don’t like free markets. People might decide to buy things they don’t approve of.

But he has centralized power in the executive branch, tamping down on dissent through violence and intimidation, and winning the loyalty of the military by giving it control of lucrative industries.

Violence and intimidation – like Antifa, or the attempt to vilify the kids from Covington Catholic for not toeing The Party Line. Though Maduro and Chávez jailed and killed people, called for rewriting their constitution (Beto – call your office), and basically threw a wrench into democracy.

If You Only Read The Headline, You Would Think This Was Her Fault

But if you read more you see the truth. State Department Spent $52,701 on Curtains for Nikki Haley’s Residence.

A spokesman for Ms. Haley said plans to buy the curtains were made in 2016, during the Obama administration. Ms. Haley had no say in the purchase, he said.

So a spending decision made during the Obama administration somehow reflects negatively on the Trump administration. Right.

What media bias? (Hat Tip to Iowahawk.)

So the New York Times realized they were spreading fake news and edited the original article to remove Nikki Haley’s name and photo. They are still guilty of Fake News.

The Ethics of the Modern Jounalist

Or lack thereof. NY Times Reporter and Senate Staffer Caught in Sex-for-Leaks Scandal : The Other McCain

The former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee has been arrested after lying to the FBI about illegally leaking classified information to a young reporter he dated for three years. The arrest exposed James A. Wolfe as the source of multiple leaks of sensitive national security information — including details of the investigation of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page — to New York Times reporter Ali Watkins. Wolfe, 57, had been in a sexual relationship with Watkins, a 2014 Temple University graduate who previously worked for BuzzFeed and Politico before joining the Times late last year.

Go read the whole thing. It is worth your time.

If You Aren’t Paying Attention, Maybe You Shouldn’t Be in the News Business

The New York Times has noticed that nuclear weapons exist. (Well golly, a Republican is in the White House.)

Even for the NY Times, this is one-sided. It’s as if the media has just woken up to the reality of nuclear weapons – but don’t quite understand that reality. ‘This Is Not a Drill’: The Growing Threat of Nuclear Annihilation – The New York Times

Let’s start with the easy stuff. They do mention Iran as a nuclear threat (possibly). But they don’t mention Obama. And while North Korea is on their minds, they don’t mention the deal that William Jefferson Clinton (and Co.) negotiated with NK, even though a primary source is William J. Perry, onetime Secretary of Defense under William J Clinton.

It’s odd really, because I could have SWORN that the NYT covered every word uttered by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and their Doomsday Clock. At least when a Republican was in office.

Then they take the canonical cheap shot at “Duck and Cover.” But you see duck and cover was never intended to protect you from “an atomic bomb landing nearby.” If you are close enough to see the flash (don’t look at it) the next thing that will happen is that every piece of glass from every window will be turned into hundreds of bits of shrapnel and hurled through the air. If you are far enough away to survive the shock-wave, you might want to avoid being cut to shreds. Just sayin.’

But then by the 70s the US had decided that it didn’t want to try to survive a nuclear war. The Russians never came to that conclusion and they have blast and fallout shelters for a large part of their population. They are still building them. The Swiss added shelters to their building code, and so have shelters for 100% of their population. Or nearly so.

When the Cold War ended nearly three decades ago, “we believed that the danger of nuclear annihilation had gone away,” William J. Perry told Retro Report. … “We’ve never been able to re-grasp that it’s come back,” he said of the risk, adding ominously that, if anything, “the danger of some kind of a nuclear catastrophe today is actually greater than it was during the Cold War.”

Who is this “we” that he’s talking about? Does he have a mouse in his pocket?

The Swiss voted sometime in the past 15 years or so to KEEP fallout (and other) shelters in their building code. Why do you think they did that? The Russians, as I’ve said, never stopped building shelters – well maybe for a few years, but they have been building them in the past few years.

When India and Pakistan were making faces at each other, and Pakistan demonstrated that they are in fact a nuclear power, no one should have thought, the danger of nuclear weapons was passed. And I think – I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong – that the Obama administration stopped Israel from bombing Iran’s main nuclear research site, so clearly the Israelis don’t think the problem has gone away. And have the reporters (and this professor) just been completely IGNORING everything that has been going on in North Korea the past few years? If Missile tests and Nuclear Explosions don’t paint a picture for you, maybe you shouldn’t be in the news business.

The Science and Security Board of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has moved its Doomsday Clock 4 times since 2010, and each time it has moved closer to Midnight. (It currently stands at 2 minutes to midnight.)

But hey look, a Republican is in Office and suddenly they are awake the possibility of nuclear war.

Here’s a collection of my posts on Cold War 2.0, and then some basic information on thermonuclear weapons, it includes a video for those threatened by big words.

News Flash: The New York Times Doesn’t Like Guns

They also don’t like John Lott. The New York Times publishes a politically biased and inaccurate ‘fact check’ of Trump’s gun remarks | Fox News

By any objective standard, truth in labeling would show that the Times article by Linda Qui is not a fact check at all, but simply a political attack on President Trump, with no attempt to understand the arguments he is making.

Just go read it.