Today in class we talked about how to construct arguments. The Post gets negative points because Madoff has no credibility to begin with – the Post keeps insisting that they do.Īnd just so you can’t say I didn’t say, I first learned of the Post’s failure from the “In the Papers” segment on NY1.
Picard’s trip to the prison here in Butner.”ĭanielle Rhoades Ha, a spokeswoman for the Times, said the newspaper had changed the version of the story on its website and was preparing a correction for tomorrow’s print edition.įrom this it would seem like Madoff is the source of the incorrect claim, and not Ms. Henriques, the Times said Picard made settlements with other Madoff investors “after Mr. 29, in which Madoff allegedly wrote “my information to Picard when he was here established” that banks “were complicit in one form or another.” Later in the article, written by Diana B. The Times story quotes from an e-mail it said Madoff sent on Dec. “At no time did any meeting between the two take place and there has been no direct communication between them at any time,” Sheehan said. Notice the importance of a paper trail in establishing who said what: The dispute is whether or not Irivng Picard, the man in charge of recovering Madoff funds on behalf of his victims, ever actually visited Madoff in prison. In fact, there already has been one claim of factual error in the interview, as reported on. Upon further reflection, it actually feels like an unethical attempt by the Post to cut an arch rival out of the picture. Henriques had made any sort of factual error, you can be sure the Post’s editors would have faulted the Times in an attempt to C their A. The Post likely didn’t get their information directly from the Ms. Why not credit the author directly instead of the publisher? But this was Madoff’s first interview for publication since being locked up in 2008, and it first appeared on the front page of the Times print edition. “But the attitude was sort of, ‘If you’re doing something wrong, we don’t want to know.'”Īt first glance this might seem fine. “They had to know,” Madoff told author Diana Henriques, who is writing a book on the scandal. Here is the relevant part of the Post’s version:īreaking his silence, Ponzi fiend Bernie Madoff said in a jailhouse interview that the big banks and hedge funds he did business with while orchestrating his $65 billion fraud knew or should have known that the astonishing profits his investments yielded were based on fraud. While every other news outlet, it seems, credited The New York Times with sending Diana Henriques to interview Bernie Madoff from his jail cell down in North Carolina (see here and here for two examples), guess who didn’t? The New York Post – owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has well known designs on taking down the Times. Here’s an example on the other end of the spectrum. Notice that the Times didn’t interview General Richards – it credited the quote to a press release put out by the producing theater. Staggering comment from the British general, right? I mean, rarely are the arts given so much power to affect world affairs. Sir David Richards, as saying that if he had seen the plays before he went to Afghanistan in 2005 it “would have made me a much better commander” of the international security forces. private performance for Britain’s Ministry of Defense in July, and a news release from the theater quoted the country’s top military commander, Gen. “The Great Game,” a cycle of plays commissioned from a dozen writers, opened in London in 2009 and has been touring the United States since August. Here’s an example of an interesting, intelligent, and, yes, slightly convoluted example from The New York Times: Really, if you’ve gotten something wrong in a paper or a report, and you didn’t do the research personally, why take the fall? Leave a citation trail, and you’ll know who to blame. The guiding principle, aside from the moral one of giving credit where credit is due, is sometimes called CYA (not to be confused with this CYA). Too little, and it can be misleading at best, and, at worse, down right plagiarism. Too much information, and it can sound clunky. Proper attribution of quotations is a tricky thing.
0 kommentar(er)
