No Minister

Posts Tagged ‘NYT

Kiwis have been intercepted while raining down.

leave a comment »

At some stage the fading New York Times may like to explain what the story was behind the following story, which has now been retracted.

I can only assume that it was simply a test article for some new journalist to practice on, but clearly they pushed the wrong button and it ended up on the NYT website.

Naturally it was pulled fairly quickly but not before the smartasses of the Interweb got a screenshot of it, and of course it never got close to the dead tree version because that side of the business still has some checks and balances, even if sub-editors are now thin on the ground in an effort to contain costs.

That last is wrong of course; this would be a fantastic story were it true. I am reminded of many aspects of The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy but the following is probably the most accurate here:

Arthur Dent: What happens if I press this button?

Ford Prefect: I wouldn’t do…

Arthur Dent: Oh!

Ford Prefect: What happened?

Arthur Dent: A sign lit up, saying ‘Please do not press this button again.”

Perhaps the NYT should think of installing that last feature for all their journalists.

Written by Tom Hunter

June 10, 2021 at 9:06 am

Posted in Humour, MSM, USA

Tagged with

Die MSM, Die – A blast from their lying past

Anybody who has followed US politics over the last few decades will remember a minor kerfuffle that occurred during the 1992 Presidential election.

Earlier that year the GOP primaries were happening and while not as exciting as the Democrat ones, because the incumbent President usually has no real challengers, people did pay some attention.

While conducting one of the usual election campaign photo opportunities President Bush dropped by a National Grocers Association convention in Orlando. One of the exhibits Bush visited was a demonstration of NCR’s checkout scanning technology, and he’s seen here at that point.

Following the triumph of Desert Storm, Bush was still riding reasonably high in the polls, even if they had declined a bit as a shallow recession appeared in late 1991 and pushed on into early 1992. But like most incumbent Presidents he was expected to win, so much so that several Democrat heavy hitters decided not to run that year, leaving the field to unknowns like some guy from Arkansas called Bill Clinton.

Still, the recession was seen as Bush’s weak spot and the Democrats began to chew away on this, along with their faithful lackey, The New York Times. The chosen narrative was that Bush didn’t really care about ordinary people, which was why he wasn’t doing anything to end the recession, so the idea was to produce endless articles showing how he was “out of touch” with the average American after decades in Washington D.C.

As you can see from the MSM coverage today of the current POTUS, an even more long-term incumbent of Washington D.C., narratives can be turned 180 degrees when the political and ideological need arises.

So when this photo and story appeared it was a gift to the NYT, and one of their lead reporters jumped all over it:

Today, for instance, [Bush] emerged from 11 years in Washington’s choicest executive mansions to confront the modern supermarket.Visiting the exhibition hall of the National Grocers Association convention here, Mr. Bush lingered at the mock-up of a checkout lane. He signed his name on an electronic pad used to detect check forgeries.

“If some guy came in and spelled George Bush differently, could you catch it?” the President asked. “Yes,” he was told, and he shook his head in wonder.

Some grocery stores began using electronic scanners as early as 1976, and the devices have been in general use in American supermarkets for a decade.

Because the NYT was regarded as the lead on any story, this one gave other editorial writers the chance to pile on and amplify the narrative (always an essential part of a propaganda campaign), like the Boston Globe

President Bush, according to reporters who followed him around Tuesday at the National Grocers Association convention in Orlando, Fla., had never before seen a supermarket cash register on which the name of the item and its price flashed on a screen when the item was dragged across an electronic scanner.

The scanner was introduced at supermarket checkouts in 1980, the year Bush was elected vice president, and is just one of the many aspects of everyday life from which a president (or vice president) is shielded in the private life of public office.

As opposed to this cool guy and his trumpet saxophone.

Then a small piece of truth emerged:

Andrew Rosenthal of The New York Times hadn’t even been present at the grocers’ convention. He based his article on a two-paragraph report filed by the lone pool newspaperman allowed to cover the event, Gregg McDonald of the Houston Chronicle, who merely wrote that Bush had a “look of wonder” on his face and didn’t find the event significant enough to mention in his own story.

Moreover, Bush had good reason to express wonder: He wasn’t being shown then-standard scanner technology, but a new type of scanner that could weigh groceries and read mangled and torn bar codes.


Bob Graham of NCR, who demonstrated the scanner technology for President Bush, said, “It’s foolish to think the president doesn’t know anything about grocery stores. He knew exactly what I was talking about.”

But by the time this truth leaked out it didn’t matter because it was buried on the back pages with one-time printing and then forgotten. To be fair there were some other MSM sources in the day that were more honest and less partisan than the Globe, NYT and others:

Newsweek screened the same tape and reported: “Bush acts curious and polite, but hardly amazed.” Michael Duffy of Time magazine called the whole thing “completely insignificant as a news event. It was prosaic, polite talk, and Bush is expert at that. If anything, he was bored.” 

Those semi-balanced days seem even longer ago than 1992.

But despite the likes of Time and Newsweek, The Narrative had multiple front-pages and therefore stuck – which was the intention of the NYT and other Democrat-supporting MSM sources. In fact it stuck so well that it’s still repeated, as it was with an ordinary 2009 NYT story about the history of the bar code scanner:

They even played a role in the 1992 presidential race, when then-PresidentGeorge H. W. Bush, at a campaign stop, seemed surprised by what had already become a technological staple of everyday life.

Also with a scathing NYT attack on John McCain about his supposed ludditism in 2008:

She even does my boarding passes – people can do that now,” Mr. McCain marveled. “When we go to the movies, she gets the tickets ahead of time. It’s incredible.”

Mr. McCain’s sense of wonder evoked the episode in the early 1990s when George H.W. Bush became overly impressed upon seeing a price scanner at a supermarket check-out counter.

As opposed to this cool guy and his Blackberry.

Yes, you’re seeing yet another standard pattern in the MSM, all the way to Cool Britannia and our own “Youth Adjacent” PM.

Written by Tom Hunter

May 18, 2021 at 12:47 pm

Die MSM, Die – No Trump and the 1619 Project should kill the NYT.

While “The Narrative” has been a journalism school subject for some time now, it’s unusual to see the phrase coming out of the mouths of the MSM themselves.

Such was the case a few months ago when the New York Times held an emergency “town hall” meeting to discuss recent problems inside the paper. Unfortunately, much like similar Google meetings, some person leaked a transcript of the entire thing to Slate.com and Jesus, is it an eye-opener into the cesspit that is the NYT nowadays. Read the whole transcript and you will see a clear illustration of why the reporting of the New York Times cannot be trusted. Aside from everything else they’re juiced to follow the lead of their Twitter readers, to the extent that I’m amazed that anybody in good faith still links to the thing for any news:

“[It] went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character. We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,…Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”

And those words come from none other than the Executive Editor Dean Baquet, none of which were intended for public consumption. Baquet was already on the backfoot over the NYT’s failure to produce an aggressive headline against Trump over his post-El Paso/Ohio shootings speech. It confirms what was long suspected: namely that the paper was dedicating its coverage and all its credibility to the Trump-Russia narrative. Seriously? They “built” their entire newsroom around ONE story – Russian Collusion? I don’t think even Watergate got that sort of treatment. There were, and are, other stories to cover, but the NYT failed; witness their hopeless reporting over the years about Jeffrey Epstein:

The New York Times should be deeply embarrassed by its failure to adequately cover the Epstein scandal, which was largely happening in its back yard.

Vanity Fair’s Vicky Ward covered Epstein (to the extent Graydon Carter let her). Phil Weiss covered Epstein. Conchita Sarnoff covered Epstein. And finally the story was propelled out of the undernews by Julie Brown of the Miami Herald, who found a Trump Angle the MSM couldn’t resist. Meanwhile, what did the Times produce? There was a thorough, skeptical 2006 report by Abby Goodnough when Epstein was first investigated — a report the paper buried on page A-19 under the most boring headline imaginable (“Questions of Preferential Treatment Are Raised in Florida Sex Case”).

And of course despite the resources applied to the Russia-Collusion story they were apparently insufficient to investigate the strength of the original Steele dossier claims that kicked off the whole mess, let alone all the other facets of the other half of the Russia-Collusion story involving the Clinton campaign and the Obama Administration’s DOJ and FBI. The Narrative was that it was not a story worth investigating. Well of course not: that might have helped Trump. Journalism for them means going after Trump, no holds barred. Facts? To hell with facts. What will these clowns do when a Democrat is President? The answer is that they’ll cover for that person more than they did for Obama, and watch their subscriber base fall away as it did in the days before Trump.

It also meant that the vaunted NYT found itself humiliated by the reports from the FBI Inspector General, who has investigated many of these things. After all, as Baquet went on to say:

“The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened,” Baquet continued. “Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.’ And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”

MUHAHAHAHAHA. Sure! Right? In fact the story only looked that way for two years to obsessed, one-eyed Democrat activists – which includes the entire staff of the NYT apparently. Anybody with an ounce of traditional investigative reporting ability and the aid of an experienced prosecutor would have done a better job. In other words someone like National Review‘s Andrew McCarthy, who as a State DA worked with the DOJ, FBI and undercover operatives to convict the Blind Sheik. McCarthy knows this stuff inside out and was tearing the Mueller team a new asshole every month through 2017-18: but he’s the sort of journalist the NYT would never work with. As The Spectator put it:

In fact, after about six months at maximum anybody interested in the truth could have screamed from rooftops that the Steele dossier was the crux of the Trump-Russia story and that the whole thing was a put-up job designed to serve as a slow-motion wrecking ball to the Trump administration. The fact that Baquet and the Times were fully invested in swinging that wrecking ball is now unmistakable by his own admission.
Mind you, the transcript makes it quite clear that an IG report that gets tough with the DOJ and FBI won’t matter to the NYT staff anyway: they have no shame and will just memory-hole it and get on with getting Trump.

Even the denizens of The Nation (whom Baquet praised) understand what’s really going on here, even as they focus only on the likes of Fox News and BreitBart:

The old business model of commercial television, radio, and newspapers called for appealing to the largest audience, which dictated offering news and commentary that spoke to as broad a spectrum as possible. Thus, mainstream news outlets developed a habit of hewing close to the ideological center—or, more precisely, what they perceived as the ideological center. Like Goldilocks’s porridge, their coverage would be not too liberal, not too conservative, but just right.

As an example of missing the point (as they do often did about the Cold War), The Nation whinges that, “Donald Trump would not be president today were it not for the help of Fox and Friends”, while completely ignoring the estimated $2.5 billion worth of free advertising provided through 2015-16 by the likes of Fox’s Democrat-supporting competitors who fell all over themselves to cover his every appearance and utterance.

But of course as long as the Left think there are enough moderate Democrats and Right Wing rubes out there who still accord the NYT some respect, they’ll simply ignore failures like the Great Russia Collusion Plot, and crash on through to the next effort, which was exactly what they did as they pivoted to “racism” (of course), with their “1619 Project” (“All Slavery, All the Time”), the lead writer being one Nikole Hannah-Jones.

The whole thrust of this “project” was that it would be spread across the USA to be used as resource for school kids learning the history of the USA, and the intellectual (if such a word can be applied to this excrement) thrust of the argument was that the USA was not founded in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence but with the arrival of the first African slaves in 1619. The project consisted of a series of articles of historical analysis that all pivoted off that key claim, as all good narratives do:

Essays in the series so far have attempted to demonstrate that America’s prisons, dietary habits, music, traffic jams, medical practices, healthcare systems, wealth gap and entire political economy, are all bones bound to one body: slavery, ‘the country’s true origin’.

The Spectator ultimately laid the blame at the foot of Post-Modernist tosser Michel Foucault, but the key “historian” who was ultimately the source of much of this stuff was one Ed Baptist at Cornell University (Incidentally that article also shows the depths to which the profession of historians has sunk with their use of Twitter to hurl abuse at professional colleagues, little different from journalists):

[The] 1619 Project relied upon the work of the controversial “New History of Capitalism” genre of historical scholarship to advance a sweeping indictment of free markets over the historical evils of slavery. The problems with this literature are many, and prominent among them is its use of shoddy statistical work by Cornell University historian Ed Baptist to grossly exaggerate the historical effect of slave-produced cotton on American economic development. Baptist’s unusual rehabilitation of the old Confederacy-linked “King Cotton” thesis is unsupported by evidence and widely rejected by economic historians…

Were they aware that Baptist’s statistics, including his estimate of slavery’s share of the antebellum economy, arose from a documented mathematical error? Did they know his thesis had been scrutinized by leading economic historians, who found problems of misrepresented evidence and citations to documents that did not support what Baptist claimed?

Northwestern University historian Leslie Harris (a historian of African American life and slavery, in New York, specifically, and the pre-Civil War era more generally) had pointed out that the NYT had come to her for advice and understanding, only to repeat the theory that she had argued against:

More importantly for Hannah-Jones’ argument, slavery in the Colonies faced no immediate threat from Great Britain, so colonists wouldn’t have needed to secede to protect it. It’s true that in 1772, the famous Somerset case ended slavery in England and Wales, but it had no impact on Britain’s Caribbean colonies, where the vast majority of black people enslaved by the British labored and died, or in the North American Colonies. It took 60 more years for the British government to finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies, and when it happened, it was in part because a series of slave rebellions in the British Caribbean in the early 19th century made protecting slavery there an increasingly expensive proposition. Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies.

Other well-known and respected historians also tore it apart:

Princeton historian Sean Wilentz wrote in a detailed piece for the Atlantic earlier this year. Wilentz wrote that Nikole Hannah-Jones assertions about the motives for the Revolutionary War were “as inaccurate as the assertions, still current, that southern secession and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.”

Gordon Wood and James McPherson, wrote a letter to the NYT explaining that what the paper has published under its 1619 Project has included major factual errors and demanded that the paper print corrections. The professors specifically noted that if the paper left the material unchanged, it might be responsible for convincing a generation of school children to believe things about the nation’s history that were demonstrably untrue...

That last article also pointed out the usual ironies that come from such agit-prop polemics:

In trying to write the history of slavery, the NYT takes the same ideological position as white supremacists, which is that the founding documents of this nation never spoke to racial equality. It is nearly impossible to separate the race-baiting narrative the NYT is publishing from the arguments made by secessionists ahead of and during the Civil War, which is the notion that “all men are created equal” was always intended to apply only to white folk.

The NYT’s attitude to all this was basically the same as their response in the Russia Collusion case: who cares, we’ve got a story to sell (there were also ideological and political objectives to achieve). And the cherry on top was that Hannah-Jones was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for this racially inflammatory trash.

As the National Association of Scholars pointed out in their analysis of the Pultizer Committee’s decision and the project itself, in their article, The Collapse of The Fourth Estate:

Hannah-Jones’ essay eccentrically titled, “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written,” is mainly remarkable in how much she manages to be wrong in a mere 7,700 or so words.

The difference between figures such as Parrington and DeVoto, and Hannah-Jones, is that, regardless of their political views, Parrington and DeVoto wrote outstanding works of historical interpretation, faithful to the facts. Hannah-Jones is just a fantasist with a grim vision and the backing of a now “woke” newspaper with the resources to propel almost any story to national prominence.

But perhaps the harshest assessment came from City-Journal:

The 1619 Project is not history: it is polemic, born in the imaginations of those whose primary target is capitalism itself and who hope to tarnish capitalism by associating it with slavery…

The 1619 Project is not history; it is conspiracy theory. And like all conspiracy theories, the 1619 Project announces with a eureka! that it has acquired the explanation to everything…

The 1619 Project is not history; it is ignorance. It claims that the American Revolution was staged to protect slavery, though it never once occurs to the Project to ask, in that case, why the British West Indies (which had a far larger and infinitely more malignant slave system than the 13 American colonies) never joined us in that revolution…

Finally: the 1619 Project is not history; it is evangelism, but evangelism for a gospel of disenchantment whose ultimate purpose is the hollowing out of the meaning of freedom, so that every defense of freedom drops nervously from the hands of people who have been made too ashamed to defend it…

All of these counter-attacks must have had some impact however, because the self-described “Beyonce of Journalism” was soon admitting that:

“I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history, …. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and, therefore, the national memory.” 

However, she and the NYT are still pushing hard for The 1619 Project to be a resource for America’s school kids, and attacking anybody who objects to that. She was also soon back to touting conspiracy theories under her Twitter moniker of Ida Bea Wells…

… which has not affected her employment or Pulitzer status in the slightest.

The people at the New York Times are not reporters and editors but simply liars and ideologues. Sadly, it will likely not be journalistic atrocities like this that will kill it, otherwise it would already be dead, but the simple absence of Trump from the Presidency.

Written by Tom Hunter

December 29, 2020 at 6:00 am

Posted in MSM, US Politics, USA

Tagged with , ,

Right on the money

New York Times Reveals Source On Kavanaugh Allegations Was Reputable Nigerian Prince

SUBJECT: I AM CONTACT YOU IN RESPECT OF FAMILY GOLD TREASURE

FOR KAVANAH INFO

FROM: LEGITIMATENIGERIANPRINCEMAN

Dear sirs and/or madams,

My name is Bob Smith.I have very much need of reliable persons and it is my reason for contacting you today.I have a very big family treasure in the sum of $1,000,000 U.S. pounds and need this money extradited out of the country immediately.I hear you are in need of many information on Bret Kavanah the evil white devil judge…..

The Babylon Bee satire site has really started to hit its stride. What The Onion used to be. Read the whole thing…

Written by Tom Hunter

September 16, 2019 at 9:02 pm

9/11: Just like guns that shoot at people

The New York Times has decided to do a little bit of a memorial for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and they have done it in the wonderful style of writing that is so beloved nowadays when uncomfortable topics are up for discussion.

It’s rather like this NYT headline a few years ago:
You see!
They were special magical rocks that just rose up off the ground and headed straight for the Jewish guy’s car.
Like those special magical planes that just “took aim” at the Twin Towers eighteen years ago.
There are many ways in which half-truths can be sold, but the passive voice is one of the most effective.

Still, I suppose it’s an improvement on this image that filled a page of the New York Times as part of a review of an important new book.

The book had just been published and had been written by a legendary 1960’s leader of the US Far Left, Bill Ayers.
Ayers and his terrorist group The Weather Underground, had set bombs all over the USA, including trying to bomb the Pentagon. And there was nothing passive about his voice, back then or in the book:

“I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough”

The edition of the NYT containing that review hit the New York streets in the early hours of the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001.
If you love history you have to love irony.And unlike any Right-Winger who ever uttered such words or something similar, Mr Ayers has continued to have a career in academia, living comfortably in Chicago, where he is a figure respected enough to be regularly invited to make speeches.

No shame in righteousness you see.

UPDATE:
Check out the previous example of this repeating theme of headlines and “reporting” that is made to fit within an already established Narrative. Here it’s, Islamic Jihadists Must Not Be Mentioned.

Previously it was, No Credit Must Be Given Trump Under Any Circumstances: Die MSM, Die 2.0 – The Narrative (NYT flip-flops)

UPDATE II:
Heh! Loved this reponse:“Got to get those airplanes under control, keep them from hijacking hapless terrorists.”

UPDATE III:
For those of you who thought this passive wording bullshit was the fault of some moronic little intern, it wasn’t. It’s a direct quote from the linked article:

Layers and layers of fact checkers and editors…..

UPDATE IV:
Yay! They finally figured it out:

Written by Tom Hunter

September 11, 2019 at 8:19 pm

Posted in New Zealand

Tagged with , , , , , ,

Die MSM, Die – NYT flip-flops

Narrative means “story”, and like The Hook, all journalists are taught that their reports must be stories. The Narrative is almost never explicit, depends on the surrounding culture, and can change fast.

It’s not just the facts, Ma’am, like photographs.

The Narrative approves of Comrades Stalin and Yezhov

For example, here is Comrade Stalin with Comrade Yezhov, in the early 1930’s when Yezhov was Water Commissar overseeing the Moscow Canal.

Yezhov would go on to head the NKVD through the worst of the purges in the late 1930’s. Your typical murderous, torturing Communist in other words.

But after that he fell from grace with Stalin throughout 1938. With the rise of Beria, an even worse human being, inside the NKVD, Yezhov saw the writing on the wall and quit.

The Narrative approves of Comrade Stalin

There followed the usual show trial with faked evidence, tortured confessions and professions of love for Stalin, all of which Yezhov had employed on his victims. He was convicted, of course, and shot in 1940.

There followed a bit of a historic problem with Yezhov’s past closeness to Stalin.

This was solved the miracle of photo alteration seen here, where Comrade Yezhov simply vanishes, which, in a sense, he had.

Change comes more quickly in the 21st Century, as evidenced by the latest exercise in Narrative control from the New York Times.

Following the mass shootings in Ohio and Texas, Trump made a speech in which he said, “In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy“, and the NYT summarised that in the following headline: TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM.

The Narrative approves of Comrade Trump’s message
Which seems fair enough.
Well! My god, can you imagine being a member of the Upper Crust New York Left and seeing a positive-sounding headline about that Orange bastard? In your newspaper? Under those circumstances? Darlings!
 
Those darlings, including several Democrat candidates for President, promptly vomited up one loud Twitter shitstorm and let the NYT know what they thought of that headline. The decisive blow was struck by the Great Leader of the Democratic Party:
 
The lady knows how to stay on-message.

Sure enough, within hours the following change was made: ASSAILING HATE, BUT NOT GUNS.
The Narrative approves – and disapproves – of Comrade Trump’s message.

In your face, Comrade Stalin.

Of course surrendering to bullies never works, and Democrats angrily noted that even the new headline was squishy on the Orange Man Hate front. Poor NYT!

No word on those mistaken print editions that hit the street. Perhaps they were pulped after NYT reporters – in what would clearly be the best use of their time and skills – were sent out into the streets to gather them up.
The thing is that the story itself did have anti-Trumpers’ criticisms of the speech. But that headline, all five words of it, did not, and that was enough for an online backlash which – shifting Communist environments a bit – reminded me of nothing less than a Maoist Struggle Session.
In keeping with that theme, the executive editor of the NYT, Dean Baquet, put the dunce hat on and acknowledged His Error in Thinking That Editorial Independence and Journalistic Integrity was Superior to The Great Wisdom Of The Collective:

“I understand the concern people have. Headlines matter. But I hope they read the coverage, which I will argue was strong.

It was written on deadline and when it was passed along for approval we all saw it was a bad headline and changed it pretty quickly.”

Based on another quote Baquet made a while ago…

….The New York Times has a strong view about its role. We are not The Nation, even though I have deep respect for them….

… I wouldn’t give two nickels for the future career of the poor bastard who actually wrote that first headline.
You see, the NYT is a special paper, not just the paper of record but the US “Moderate” Left’s paper. Their paper is supposed to report and editorialise aggressively against Trump in all situations. The NYT failed, and so it must be punished.
Yes, this is the MSM. Yes, they’re Left-wing hacks. And yes, everything they say should be verified by readers, rather than simply being trusted.

Written by Tom Hunter

August 20, 2019 at 7:31 pm

Posted in New Zealand

Tagged with , , , , ,

Jacinda Makes The NYT

For all the wrong reasons.   (Wait til they find out about all her junkie hangers on!)

You’ll laugh your arse off when you read it.

When you’re a comrade leftie and you’ve lost the New York Times, you might as well go and cut your throat.

Written by adolffinkensen

February 1, 2019 at 7:50 am

Posted in New Zealand

Tagged with ,

Pimping4Paradise

Pimping For Paradise at the New York Times

“This morning, a classic New York Times correction:

Because of an editing error, an article on Monday about a theological battle being fought by Muslim imams and scholars in the West against the Islamic State misstated the Snapchat handle used by Suhaib Webb, one of the Muslim leaders speaking out. It is imamsuhaibwebb, not Pimpin4Paradise786.

That’s quite an “editing error.” One suspects there is a story behind it.”

Adolf wonders with which rival paper the NYT shortly will merge.

Written by adolffinkensen

May 11, 2016 at 1:28 am

Posted in New Zealand

Tagged with ,