Will The New York Times Now Apologize For Not Having a Comics Section?
Hit & Run stalwart and blogger extraordinaire Alan Vanneman tipped me toward just about the oddest article I've encountered in The New York Times. It's a retraction:
In 1994, Philip Bowring, a contributor to the International Herald Tribune's op-ed page, agreed as part of an undertaking with the leaders of the government of Singapore that he would not say or imply that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had attained his position through nepotism practiced by his father Lee Kuan Yew. In a February 15, 2010, article, Mr. Bowring nonetheless included these two men in a list of Asian political dynasties, which may have been understood by readers to infer that the younger Mr. Lee did not achieve his position through merit. We wish to state clearly that this inference was not intended. We apologize to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong for any distress or embarrassment caused by any breach of the undertaking and the article.
That is the whole thing but read it at the Times' site.
The apology is part of a $114,000 defamation settlement in favor of the Singaporean meritocracy in which the International Herald Tribune went so far as to suggest that, just like Notre Dame football or the Bushes, not every win came out of thin air.
And while it's slightly off-topic, I do want to apologize to Dizzy Gillespie, for trading off his name and, occasionally, causing distress by arguing in favor of drug legalization, open borders, and abolishing the minimum wage.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hit & Run stalwart and blogger extraordinaire Alan Vanneman
ack
FTG
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ftg
Which one?
may have been understood by readers to infer
Not even good journalistic word choice. Imply, not infer.
I suspect this may have been deliberate on the Times' part, in order to underline the insincerity of the apology.
it is awkwardly worded, but i think it is the readers who are inferring, not mr. bowring
I suspect you are right. That's why I pointed it out.
VANNEMAN DELENDA EST
Singapore makes everyone do this. Usually, the Economist just prints the letter from the Ministry (as they are required to do by law), and then prints a letter from a reader predicting they will have to print a letter from the ministry, and how stupid Singapore's leaders are. Much more effective.
Buon giorno, Carlo!
Why not tell Singapore to go fuck itself, instead? I mean, if the Times cannot write what it wants what good is access? Also, why pay a settlement?
libel and slander laws
Yes, I realize this, but those are Singapore's laws. The Times could write a story about people starving in North Korea, and Kim Jong Il could declare that libel and demand money. Would they retract and pay out then?
Never mind, they probably would.
No one is starving in North Korea. And everyone has access to free healthcare.
Really? Thanks for settingme straight Mr. Duranty!
Yes, I realize this, but those are Singapore's laws. The Times could write a story about people starving in North Korea, and Kim Jong Il could declare that libel and demand money. Would they retract and pay out then?
Never mind, they probably would.
No one is starving in North Korea. And everyone has access to free healthcare.
Yes, I realize this, but those are Singapore's laws. The Times could write a story about people starving in North Korea, and Kim Jong Il could declare that libel and demand money. Would they retract and pay out then?
Never mind, they probably would.
I totally meant to do that, as what I say is so important.
"The Times could write a story about people starving in North Korea, and Kim Jong Il could declare that libel and demand money. Would they retract and pay out then?"
Yes, if the paper was sold In England and a few other European countries. It falls under libel tourism and The times is well aware of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05.....6tue2.html
Read the link, and that is about the shittiest thing I have read today.
Next world war we should let Europe fall to whatever tyrant wants it. I think those inbred fucks have an affinity for tyranny.
Also, no US citizen corporations included, should ever have to set foot in another country's court to defend themselves from this shit. If Europe don't like it the Old Bitch can defend herself.
capitol l, they own corporate assets in Paris:
International Herald Tribune of Paris, France. Gillespie missed this obvious angle to the story.
I love sh*tting in pools!
No one is starving in North Korea. And everyone has access to free healthcare.
I dunno, I haven't had lunch yet and I'm pretty hungry right now.
because they want to sell copies of their newspaper in singapore
Who mourns for the Far Eastern Economic Review?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....f_the_FEER
wow, i didn't know they were gone
i used to have a subscription
Newspapers strike deals with corrupt Asian governments about how they will spin their reporting in terms favorable to the government?
Ha! I feel sorry for those suckers.
Nothing like that would ever happen here!
Somewhat right AB, I could say, In my opinion, Anonymous Backstabber reminds me of a mother fucking cock sucker and It would be protected under free speech.
I thought the "retraction" was completely counterproductive (from the Lee dynasty's perspective) and very cleverly done by the Times. They managed to get the Lees to "force" them to publish not only that Lee Jr. is a legacy, but that the government tried to hush them up.
Bravo, I say. That's some good lawyering, convincing the plaintiff in a defamation suit to settle for republication of the alleged defamation.
That was exactly my thought as well.
Yes, my thought too. "The New York Times never meant to suggest that Mrs. Van Hooterton was a gold-digging bimbo with the brains of a diseased muskrat, and deeply regrets that any readers made this inference."
The irony of Pinch Sulzberger making this point aside...
Good point.
it was a thing of beauty.
causing distress by arguing in favor of drug legalization, open borders, and abolishing the minimum wage.
I would be distressed if you did NOT argue in favor of these things.
LOL, WIshful thinking! Itll never happen.
Lou
http://www.anon-browsing.eu.tc
+1
Anon bot you slut, you've been hanging around the atlantic wire!
Will The New York Times Now Apologize For Not Having a Comics Section?
They do have one...it's called Frank Rich's columns.
"Hit & Run stalwart and blogger extraordinaire Alan Vanneman" And author of GREAT NOVELS! Let's get it right, Nick!
Alan "Still Lovin' the Boa" Vanneman
http://productsearch.barnesand.....n+Vanneman
"In a preface, Watson asserts that the incredible events that follow really happened, but the explanation for the mysterious deaths is so far-fetched and without any attempt at a convincing pseudo-scientific basis that the reader is left not in awe at the author's imaginative speculations but flabbergasted by his concoctions."
Ouch!
After his weak debut, Sherlock Holmes and the Giant Rat of Sumatra (2002), which pitted the master sleuth against a race of intelligent rat-men
AAARRRRGGHHHHHHHH
"[Vanneman] undermines this plausible twist by once again spending many pages detailing Watson's amorous pursuits ("she grasped me by the most shameless of handles")"
What are these, vanity publications?
What do you mean AAARGH? That sounds awesome!
The New York Times doesn't need a comic section. The paper itself is one big joke.
Thread Win