New York Times' Kate Zernike under fire for coverage of Bridge-gate

[Exciting Trip]

The New York Times made several changes to a story by Kate Zernike that originally suggested evidence agaisnt Chris Christie's knowledge about the lane closures in Fort Lee (i.e. Bridge-gate).

Today the Washington Post reports:

"its editor was forced to issue this extraordinary statement to the Huffington Post: ‘We’ve made probably dozens of changes to the story to make it more precise. That was one of them. I bet there will be dozens more.’”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/02/03/new-york-times-defends-christie-story-governor-was-trying-to-change-the-discussion/?hpid=z3

The media has been said to sacrifice journalistic accuracy and ethics for the sake of pushing a more traffic-friendly scandal-oriented angle, reminiscent of the pseudoscandals aimed at Al Gore and Bill Clinton.

Today progressive media critic Bob Somerby penned an entry titled " Zernike changes her basic account again!"

My personal opinion is that I couldn't care less about accuracy, since Christie is not a Democrat. If Christie's chances of becoming President decrease as a result of this, I approve of the way media reports are being built.

[SecularMotion]

1. When you post crap like this, you're carrying water for the right wing

The scandal is about Gov. Christie closing the bridge lanes for political reasons, not the NY Times reporting of the story.

And the slam against the Times over the Zegas letter, says Jamieson, has a political feel to it. “I think that the Christie administration was trying to change the discussion by focusing the attack on [Zernike] and the New York Times, and if you look at the language she wrote, it was straight down the middle,” says the Times’s Metro editor. Jamieson says he saw no need to issue a correction over the “had” v. “evidence exists” change. “I do not yet feel a correction is warranted. If down the road I feel that one is warranted, we’ll certainly do one,” he says.

[RandiFan1290]

2. Welcome Back to DU!

[dionysus]

6. !!

[deutsey]

3. Was she also publicly accused by her high school social studies teacher

of deceptive behavior?

[okaawhatever]

10. Like Jon Stewart said, "That shit really does go on your permanent record." nt

[FSogol]

4. LOL at complaining about a writer editing a story while you edited your post 5 times*

* and counting.

[uppityperson]

8. and rec'd it also

[bigdarryl]

5. If the Article wasn't accurate why did Christie go after Wildstein then

[CJCRANE]

7. "My personal opinion is that I couldn't care less about accuracy".

Well, most of us here do care about accuracy so go peddle that line somewhere else.

BTW I don't believe that changing the story has anything to do with accuracy, it's more likely that political pressure is being applied.

[Gothmog]

9. I love the fact that the NYT is fighting back

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/new-york-times-bridge-christie-morning-joe-mika-brzezinski

The New York Times on Tuesday defended its recent coverage of the George Washington Bridge scandal amid steady criticism from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's (R) most vocal allies in the media.

"Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski said Tuesday that the newspaper overreached in its report last week on allegations that Christie contemporaneously knew of lane closures on the bridge. It was the second day in a row that the program heavily scrutinized last Friday's report from Times reporter Kate Zernike.

"The New York Times on Friday and all of the headlines on Saturday and Sunday — 'He Knew.' He knew what? I don't get what -- and The New York Times had to, like, re-do their story," Brzezinski said, referring to updates applied to Zernike's report.