NYT credibility rating downgraded

Disclaimer: NYT Op-Ed does not fact-check. They leave that in the hands of those that send in the letters.
Local blogger gets props for letter in NYT: Chip Atkinson gets props from Patrick Eakes for getting his letter in the NYT Op-Ed site but notes that there are stil major factual errors in the letter itself. One thing to note: Anyone can be printed by New York Times Op-Ed since it’s by submission. I know a few people that have been… but it’s nothing like getting the news story picked up by a major carrier like this.
This comment brings it around full circle to one of JR’s posts at the News and Record about where credibility should be given and where it’s due. He questions the New York Times on the JP merger since there were no sources quoted and thereby not able to be verified. Why should New York Times be any different from trust-worthy bloggers?
In regard’s to Chip’s letter, he never made a mention of his experience or sources for his PGA expertise while any local blogger knows that Patrick Eakes has been hammering the little ball with the skinny sticks for ages. Again, with credibility, Patrick’s words rang true. Justification and sources are here.
So the questions remain: Why should NYT not source? What makes NYT better than a blogger? PaidContent.org has scooped multiple major newsbreaks before WSJ, WaPo, or NYT got a hold of the stories. Should bloggers even matter? I would venture “yes” being that there are a lot more “fangirls/fanboys” of certain subjects that could quote you line and verse as well as any expert in the field. Should you trust bloggers as a source? If you can confirm it, who the heck cares where it comes. If my pet rock had the latest scoop on AOL and I could confirm it, then really.. does it matter if the news broke from my pet rock instead of Lou Dobbs?
LUX CREDIBILITY WATCH: New York Times downgraded to “NI”.
LEGEND:
CR – Credible
NI – Needs Improvement
LL – Liar, Liar

Via PatrickEakes and JohnRobinson

  • Chip

    None of the facts in dispute enhanced, contradicted or exagerated the point of my editorial. If you guys want to defame a person’s credibility over stupid stuff like this, have at it. Just be careful to shine that light both ways.

  • Chip

    None of the facts in dispute enhanced, contradicted or exagerated the point of my editorial. If you guys want to defame a person’s credibility over stupid stuff like this, have at it. Just be careful to shine that light both ways.

  • darkmoon

    No… they didn’t do any of those. It was just incorrect. Has nothing to do with a person’s credibility, but with credibility as a blogger and one that provides the information.
    Since you never posted corrections, one assumes you don’t care to inform your readers. In any case, if you read the post MORE CAREFULLY, you would find that it has less to do with you and more to with with NYT’s latest credibility issues with anonymous sourcing. Of course, you would think it’s all about you..

  • darkmoon

    No… they didn’t do any of those. It was just incorrect. Has nothing to do with a person’s credibility, but with credibility as a blogger and one that provides the information.
    Since you never posted corrections, one assumes you don’t care to inform your readers. In any case, if you read the post MORE CAREFULLY, you would find that it has less to do with you and more to with with NYT’s latest credibility issues with anonymous sourcing. Of course, you would think it’s all about you..