Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
How Bias at the NYT Helped Kill ACORN
So, the New York Times finally ran a correction. But after six weeks of "considering" the errors in its own reporting, the Times’ correction of its misleading ACORN story, came way, way, WAY to late.
The correction ran the same day that the anti-poverty group ACORN called it quits, after a year under attack — and a day after the paper’s public editor wrote that yes indeed, the paper has "mistakenly reinforced falsehoods" from right wing activists against the group.
When right-wing journo-hucksters released videos appearing to show ACORN workers offering advice to people posing as a pimp and a prostitute, the Times fell for an editing trick. The videos gave the impression that two hucksters were dressed in outlandish costumes when they visited ACORN offices. They weren’t.
Video transcripts also contradicted what the video makers claimed, namely that ACORN staffers appeared to endorse talk of using underage girls as prostitutes. The Times also fell for that. In fact, the transcript reveals that ACORN staffers believed they were discussing a plan to protect two girls.
Responding to a complaint from the media critics at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Hoyt said Sunday that the paper’s editors were "considering issuing a correction."
They’d had six weeks (since the transcript was first brought to their attention) for that. "Considering." Synonyms include chewing over, cogitating, contemplating. Just what were they contemplating?
What Times readers might want to consider is New York Times prejudice. If Hoyt and his friends had been taken for a ride by the Yes Men, say, who regularly pose as captains of industry saying outrageous (or not so outrageous) things — would the paper have cogitated over a correction for weeks?
Members of the group Code Pink pulled off a hoax Tuesday by releasing a fake press release in AIPAC’s name calling for a complete freeze on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. Think the Times would have fallen so unquestioningly for that?
Here’s something to consider. The paper fact-checks allegations from left leaning groups — to death. The contemplation-of-a-correction story is less about bad reporting than bias. The Times seems to have considered ACORN guilty from the start.
In ACORN’s case, the patient’s dead. But that doesn’t mean the doctor shouldn’t be struck off.