July 11, 2004
TURKEY NOT FAKE: NYT
In an historic media first, the New York Times has published a fake turkey correction:
An article last Sunday about surprises in politics referred incorrectly to the turkey carried by President Bush during his unannounced visit to American troops in Baghdad over Thanksgiving. It was real, not fake.
Let's see if this diminishes the bird's powerful hold over the gullible and sad.
Posted by Tim Blair at July 11, 2004 08:19 PMI totally want to work in the New York Times correction department.
'Because of an editing error, an article in Business Day yesterday about the appointment of Ian M. Cook as chief operating officer at the Colgate-Palmolive Company referred incorrectly to another executive who was named a vice chairman. The executive, Lois D. Juliber, is a woman.'
Where do I go? The I. M. Cook reference, with so much potential for turkey puns? The confused gender thing? What? What?
Who's to say what's a real turkey? They're not real any longer when they die, at least from their point of view. What we had there is a former turkey.
Posted by: Ron Hardin at July 11, 2004 at 11:33 PM"What we had here is a former turkey."'E's passed on! This turkey is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't put 'im in the platter 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-TURKEY!!
Did Hell freeze over or did I enter the 'Twilight Zone'? I had to read the correction a couple of times before I believed it. (I'm half expecting someone to post that the website was hacked and there was NO correction issued.)
Good for the NY Times. Short and to the Point. Not blaming anyone else. No claiming they weren't informed and didn't get an official briefing about the turkey.
How many other major sites have acknowledged their error in reporting about that turkey? I can't think of many. I wonder why they just realized the turkey was real?
I thought "Bush's Fake Turkey" was fated to become an urban legend we'd be hearing about decades from now. It still may. However, it's nice to see the correction in the NY Times.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at July 12, 2004 at 02:40 AMIf Bush had named his cat Turkey, would that have caused trouble in Ankara?
Posted by: EddieP at July 12, 2004 at 03:13 AM"Didn't see that one coming... ;-)"
NO ONE expects a Spanish Inquisition!!!
Posted by: Aaron at July 12, 2004 at 03:37 AMHowever, they didn't correct the overall statement that included the mistake, which is still just as erroneous in its understanding of the American public. Berke's comment, let us recall, was:
There are also the manufactured surprises, like Mr. Bush's cloak-and-dagger Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad, which drew praise even from Democrats. (The public relations bonanza fizzled after the press reported that Mr. Bush had posed with a mouth-watering - but fake - turkey.)
Does anyone besides a NY Times analyst think that the average red-state American would have thought Bush visiting the troops didn't really mean anything to the troops if the prop he'd been holding had been plastic? Does anyone besides a genius from the New York media think it would have mattered a goddam bit to the troops compared to the fact of seeing him there?
Posted by: Mike G at July 12, 2004 at 04:15 AMMost of the people I know could have cared less if Bush had gone to Baghdad and unveiled the Macy Thankgiving Day Parade huge, inflatable turkey. The fact that he went was important, not what idiots in the media wanted to focus on. Although some of the comparisons between his visit and Hillary's were pretty neat.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at July 12, 2004 at 04:23 AMTo be honest I was enjoying the plastic turkey fetish so much that I'm disappointed that someone has at last decided to apologise.
Posted by: Ross at July 12, 2004 at 04:49 AMTo be honest I was enjoying the plastic turkey fetish so much that I'm disappointed that someone has at last decided to apologise.
You're disappointed! For the love of God, think of the loony left! They must be choking on their organically grown bean sprouts right about now!
Posted by: Rebecca at July 12, 2004 at 05:28 AMNo one reads corrects. This thing has a life of its own. Our grandchildren will probably be reading textbooks about how Bush posed with a fake turkey.
Posted by: Bruce Rheinstein at July 12, 2004 at 05:32 AMActually Rebecca, the loony left will take it as confirmation that Bush controls the mainstream media, so that will keep them happy.
Posted by: Ross at July 12, 2004 at 05:41 AMThe NY Times ignores & buries the fact that Bush's visit was in order to boost troop morale & to reassure Iraqis of our commitment. Pinch Sulzberger & his crew are succeeding in their slanting of the news, despite the occasional correction.
Posted by: ForNow at July 12, 2004 at 06:51 AM
I have to wonder why the apology now, when all other indicators say there has been no change of heart for the better at the NYT.
Best Guess: they got wind of something that was going to expose their foolishness anyway, maybe a Repub election ad, or a Fox TV special, or whatever.
But otherwise .... why now? They've been deliberately dishonest about the turkey all this time, and they are still just as dishonest as ever on other stories. I may not like them, but I don't think they're stupid; there's a self-motivated reason for this in there somewhere.
Posted by: ras at July 12, 2004 at 07:14 AM>NO ONE expects a Spanish Inquisition!!!
Our chief rhetorical weapon is "plastic turkey!" "Plastic turkey" and "Halliburton!"
Our TWO rhetorical weapons are "plastic turkey!" and "Halliburton!" And "it's all about oiiiillll!"
Our THREE rhetorical weapons are "plastic turkey!", "Halliburton!" and "it's all about oiiiillll!" And "stop getting all your information from Fox News, dude!"
Our FOUR rhetorical weapons are... oh, let me start over!
Posted by: Dave S. at July 12, 2004 at 08:55 AMLike Chris said, good for the NYT, after all, the administration didn't put out a press release to the Western media before the dinner, explaining that all the food wasn't fake, so how could our razor sharp, never miss a trick, brave, in the thick of things, western journalists be expected to come to anything else but the obvious conclusion that the food at a thanksgiving dinner that Bush attended was fake.
I mean if millions of ordinary people sitting in their homes thousands and thousands of miles awsay from Baghdad didn't find out until a couple of days after the event that the turkey was real, then how the hell were JOURNALISTS supposed to find out??
Just another example of the Bush administrations failure in Iraq. Mr Bush, in future, please remember to send out the gold embossed statements to the WESTERN MEDIA about these things !
So yeah, good on the NYT for having the ability to find the truth about these things and correct them. (Even if it is around 8 months after everbody else knew)
Posted by: John at July 12, 2004 at 09:36 AMTo John's (slightly veiled) point, yeah, the NYT may still be pathetically slanted, but at least they fessed up briefly rather than offer eight paragraphs of "the dog ate my homework" like the WaPo guy did. That letter is just PATHETIC.
Posted by: Mike G at July 12, 2004 at 09:56 AMHmm, they'll admit to the "fake turkey" error but they won't give back Walter Duranty's Pulitzer.
Twilight Zone, indeed.
Well, at least it's a start.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG at July 12, 2004 at 10:34 AMbut at least they fessed up briefly rather than offer eight paragraphs of "the dog ate my homework" like the WaPo guy did. That letter is just PATHETIC.
You are quite right. Its pathetic that it took this long, but at least it was an unambiguous correction when it did happen.
Posted by: John at July 12, 2004 at 10:52 AMIt was also a correction months after the damage had been done and it was no longer a live issue.
Posted by: Peter at July 12, 2004 at 11:01 AM"damage was done"? no one would remember this non-event if you chumps didn't obsess over it. get some perspective you fucking nerds.
Posted by: sean at July 12, 2004 at 11:07 AMLOL
A troll calling other people obsessive nerds! Set sail ... for irony!
Posted by: Sortelli at July 12, 2004 at 11:12 AMSean, the reason why we obsessed over the "fake turkey" line, was because it was repeated over and over by biased journo's and commenters, who mostly knew it wasn't true. Every time it was bought up by us, it was as a response to morons like you trying to get the line up and running again.
And who is willing to bet that hopel;essly naive f9/11 crew will still not accept that the turkey was real even after NYT's retraction.
Your lot have been caught out in *another* fabrication Sean, suck it up babe.
Posted by: Michael at July 12, 2004 at 11:31 AMsortelli:
LOL!!1 etc.
JB:
no one i know uses a turkey, fake or otherwise, to bash bush or his disciples esp. when bigger issues like deception, corruption and staggering incompetence are obviously more effective sticks. if you want to keep some stupid turkey misreporting alive instead of engaging with anything actually important, don't let me stop you.
michael:
the times aren't my lot, dumbass.
Oh my gosh! Sean's sticking around to defend his points? Is he afraid that strangers on the internet don't grasp his wisdom and wit?
Could he be . . . obsessing?
Obsess over your spelling and shift keys, NERD!
Posted by: Sortelli at July 12, 2004 at 11:38 AMPhat Phil gets much of his material from the NYT. Will we see an acknowledgment in his column?
Posted by: walter plinge at July 12, 2004 at 12:15 PMWill they ever print a correction about the "Brutal Afghan Winter" that was going to swallow up and destroy the American Army.
Posted by: perfectsense at July 12, 2004 at 12:53 PMPerfect -
I would welcome a nice "Brutal Afghan Winter" about now...it is rather hot here, at present.
Posted by: Major John at July 12, 2004 at 02:07 PMNow, I'm confused, and suspicious. Who do believe? The NY Times, which is and has been wrong on all important issues for 75 years. Can you say Walter Duranty? I thought you could. Now, that the NY Times is saying the turkey was real, it must be wrong. The turkey really was plastic. I know, I'm late jumping on board the 'fake turkey' bandwagon, but I just don't believe the Times. What's a enquiring mind to think?
Posted by: Jabba the Nutt at July 12, 2004 at 02:08 PM"Good for the NY Times. Short and to the Point. Not blaming anyone else. No claiming they weren't informed and didn't get an official briefing about the turkey."
And only 8 months late.
Posted by: Yehudit at July 12, 2004 at 02:41 PMHey, you want late-reported news, here's late-reported news...
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,64113,00.html
What's sad is that you can't let go of the turkey while desperately ignoring the fact the US Senate concludes that the reasons for the Iraq invasion are bogus, reasons you wholeheartedly defended. I say defended instead of defend, because you have been eerily silent on the issue for some time.
Is an apology and retraction forthcoming? Thought not.
Posted by: fatfingers at July 12, 2004 at 02:57 PMThe plastic turkey myth is meaningful, not only because we’ve had a lot of fun with it, which we have, but also because so many leftist journalists have obsessed on it. One of them says it will be taught at journalism schools for years as a preeminent instance of how politicians use imagery to deceive. The journalists have used this myth to bury the real significance of Bush’s Baghdad visit & to bash Bush instead. They would like it if, for future journalists, Bush’s entire Presidency were buried in this plastic turkey imagery. It’s a journalistic exercise in practicing what you preach against. Psychological projection, as a professional technique. For all involved, whether they like it or not,
so much depends
upon
a plastic
turkey
glazed with glaze
stuff
beside the right
POTUS
Don't feed the trolls, people. Clearly they thrive on attention; getting into arguments with their betters is the only excitement they get in their cramped, pathetic lives.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 12, 2004 at 03:08 PMFrom the article Timothy Lang noted:
(Although Vice President Dick Cheney, who recently told Sen. Patrick J. Leahy to "fuck himself" after Leahy questioned Cheney's Halliburton ties on the Senate floor, might.)
What an interesting quote. Chaney cursed at Leahy in the third person. "Hey Senator, go fuck himself".
Posted by: David [.net] at July 12, 2004 at 03:08 PMAs for the justifications for the Iraq invasion, I never thought that, in terms of justification, it should matter whether we ended up finding masses of WMD ready to rumble in Iraq. I said that a number of times (at Lucianne.com, not here) before the invasion. There were plenty more justifications, including but not limited to justifications in terms of WMD. They may be found in Bush’s various speeches. Just for instance, 18 UN mandatory resolutions, right up through Resolution 1441, were enough.
Posted by: ForNow at July 12, 2004 at 03:11 PMYes! Tell us how the intellegence was wrong, which was apparently something fatfigners didn't hear the first time around when David Kay said it. He needs to hear it again. But don't break it to him that this buries the BUSHLIED!!! story, because it might come as a shock to him.
He still hasn't figured out how to read Peter Singer or that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11. He's been spending too much time dithering around with the anti-semites at www.whatreallyhappened.com, after all.
Posted by: Sortelli at July 12, 2004 at 03:20 PMShh, ForNow, don't you be saying things like freedom and justice are justifications for removing Saddam. The war was bogus, don'cha know!
Posted by: Sortelli at July 12, 2004 at 03:22 PMYes David, and your point? That's not the focus of the article, you realise...
Of course it wasn't, Timothy, or what you were refering to. It was a parenthetical bit, so I even preserved the parentheses.
But as to the artcle itself, I cut them some slack for them reporting this so long after it happened. After all, Kos is still an asshole.
Posted by: David [.net] at July 12, 2004 at 03:37 PM,michael:
the times aren't my lot, dumbass.
Sean, I wasn't reffering to the Times as "your lot"
I was reffering to whiny little morons who think lying is fine as long as it serves your purpose. Like I said, suck it up babe, cos every one of these proven lies shows the public what you lot are really like.
because you have been eerily silent on the issue for some time.
Fatfingers,
sort of like the silence from the "no danger from Saddam" idiots now that its been shown that there really is reason to suspect that Iraq sought uranium.
sort of like the silence from the "come on, show us the WMD, ANY WMD's" people - now that WMD have shown up in Iraq (its suddenly changed to "show us the stockpiles of *new* WMD, ANY *new* WMD")
sort of like the silence over David Kay saying that after seeing what he has in Iraq, that the case for war for future safety was even stronger than originally thought.
Sort of like that silence about the mass graves that have turned out to be even worse than most people thought
Is that the sort of silence you are talking about Fatfingers?
You apologize for nearly condemning our children to a future full of terrorists armed with Iraqi supplied WMD and I'll apologize for believing the CIA (and every other major intelligence organization in the world) over Iraqs stockpiles at the time.
JorgXMckie--
Although some of the comparisons between his visit and Hillary's were pretty neat.
In advance of Hillary's visit to Baghdad, some press liason types politely inquired as to whether some soldiers from New York wanted to eat dinner with her in the chow hall. None volunteered (those that ate with her had to be drafted). The contempt for her is just staggering. Know what the ATC guys codenamed Hillary's helicopter?
Broomstick One.
Posted by: Fresh Air at July 12, 2004 at 05:04 PMFreshAir- B...but... but... Democrats support the troops!
Posted by: Sortelli at July 12, 2004 at 05:38 PMSortelli--
It's really funny to see the comments in soldier's blogs and e-mails home. The MSM and clowns like Ted Kennedy are completely transparent to them. There's none of this "Oh my gosh, are the people back home still supporting us?" It's more like "I saw the clip of that guy on CSPAN yesterday. What an a--hole!"
Posted by: Fresh Air at July 12, 2004 at 05:50 PMNotice that ever single turkey thread on Tim's blog brings in the trolls?
Maybe one of us should start up a "TurkeyBlog" so we can divert the trolls away from here...
Posted by: Quentin George at July 12, 2004 at 06:12 PMMaybe one of us should start up a "TurkeyBlog" ...
or, better still, a "Fake Fake Turkey Retraction Conspiracy" thread?
Posted by: Egg at July 12, 2004 at 07:45 PMAll this talk of turkey is making me hungry, what's for dinner?
Posted by: JakeD at July 12, 2004 at 08:10 PM"Notice that ever single turkey thread on Tim's blog brings in the trolls?"
The thing that gets me is, after they obviously go looking for it, they then say things like:
"What's sad is that you can't let go of the turkey"
If they don't consider it a worthy topic of discussion, why do they discuss it?
Posted by: 2dogs at July 12, 2004 at 08:11 PMLet's all e-mail Phatty's editor and demand to know what he's going to do about it. Has Tim got the address?
Posted by: Sue at July 12, 2004 at 08:55 PMWhat's sadd is that you REPIGLICANS can't let go of the turkey....
Bl-Bl-Blogmire!!!!
But what of the enlisted men, did they just get stuck with a rubber chicken?
(You knew it was begging for it).
Re the Halliburton as MM / anti-war mantra. Troll bait here!
Posted by: Romeo at July 13, 2004 at 01:05 AMI said it before and I will say it again, as many times as it takes, for the benefit of people who can't think of a new argument (i.e., trolls):
I DON'T CARE ABOUT SADDAM'S WMDs! Whether he had them or not, the single incontestable fact is that he was a sadistic, murdering tyrant with billions of dollars of disposable income, who was perfectly willing to fund any and all terrorists who wished to do damage to Western civilization, because Western civilization was all that stood in his path toward conquering the Middle East (and thus, the whole oil-dependent world). Anybody who doesn't understand that is an idiot.
I don't think GWB lied. I think he believed what everybody else believed: that Saddam had WMDs. It was an intelligence failure, but if so, then it was a fortuitous one for us. Because now Saddam is gone for good and we can set about making the world a litttle less hospitable to his ilk.
Posted by: Rebecca at July 13, 2004 at 01:43 AM
I've got a feeling the election might be decided by absentee ballots from the soldiers. Think the Dems will try to get them thrown out again?
The correction has moved off the NYTimes corrections page, but it's still here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40D16FF345C0C778CDDAE0894DC404482
Quick, someone murk up Rebecca's moral clarity by babbling about Iraq's "sovereignity" and claiming we had no right to act against a murderous tyrant who wasn't murdering us because his army was a terrible shot anyway!
Posted by: Sortelli at July 13, 2004 at 10:56 AMQuick, someone murk up Rebecca's moral clarity by babbling about Iraq's "sovereignity" and claiming we had no right to act against a murderous tyrant who wasn't murdering us because his army was a terrible shot anyway!
We trolls have never had an independent thought so - what Sortelli said!
Posted by: Miranda fatfingers Nemesis Chris rhactive Kernelfailure Divide at July 13, 2004 at 05:28 PM