Once again, the NYT belives the rules are different for them

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/03/06/D8NMRRRG0.html

What a bullshit, slimy way to get a story.

 

Yeah, that reporter is a terrible guy. No morals or ethics whatsoever.

 

hondo,

I take it from your hed for this topic that you don't like the NYT. However, is it fair to suggest the paper is drawing up its own rules if it never knew the reporter paid the kid? The blame lies with the reporter, not some double standard the NYT is practicing regarding bribery. Wouldn't you agree?

I mean, if you want a serious discussion about the reporter's decision, should you really couch it in some volley at the NYT?

 

I don't know how $2,000 slips anyone's mind ... especially when you know it could make you look bad.

 

At least spell all the words in your thread title correctly before expecting us to take you seriously.

 

That, too.

 

You know, if this was anything else, I might tend to agree, but from the AP story ... [The]expose on Web sex sites run by teenagers. The Times investigation prompted congressional hearings, led to arrests and fueled reforms in the way Web-hosting companies screen their clients.

Again from the article ...
At the time, [the reporter] said, he didn't intend to write about Berry, but had come across his distressing Web identity while researching an unrelated article. Eichenwald said he and his wife decided to try to get help for the young man.
The reporter also said he was acting as a private citizen at the time he wrote the check because he said, "We were gambling 2,000 on the possibility of saving a kid's life."

What an awful, awful man. To save the life of a child. Ya'll sound the like kinds of dicks who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone, lest it get in the way of your "ethics."

 

Could it be the reporter did this because of the atmosphere in which he worked? That this was acceptable. Is that how Jayson Blair took his gig and ran with it?

 

All it takes is a minute to tell your editor you gave the kid some money ... worse comes to worst, another reporter writes it. What's wrong with that? You still save the kid.

Jay, it's not about whether corruption happened, it's all about appearance. Now settle down and take a nap.

 

First, had this reporter worked for the Right-wing Weekly, hondo's thread title would be, "Republican reporter saves kid."

Second, if you've got a problem with any of this, there's something wrong with you.

I don't give a shit if he paid the kid for the story. He sent bad guys to prison, stopped a lot of bad things from happening and very likely saved a young person's life. I say that's $2k well spent and some damn fine work.

 

The only reporters I know of who could afford to throw $2K at some unknown kid are the kind who work for the NY Times. The privilege of excess.

If this guy was on the up and up, he should have told his editor about his involvement, recused himself from reporting the story, and gotten someone else to do it.

If I want to read about writers wrapping stories around themselves in some peculiar editorial methodology, I'll go pick up a recent issue of SI, e.g. Bamberger watching Wie, Garrity at Nicklaus's last jaunt at St. Andrews, etc.

 

I can't believe anyone would squawk against a single word of this post.