Reuters Errs on Polanski: Claims He Pled for “Time Served”
Via Tim K. comes yet another article that mistakenly says Polanski pled for time served. This time the offending news agency is Reuters:
However, [Polanski] fled the United States before the case was concluded because he believed a judge would sentence him to up to 50 years behind bars despite a plea agreement for time already served.
As I explained at length this morning with citations to numerous sources, Polanski most certainly did not plead for time served, or 90 days, or anything of the sort. At the time of his plea, he was made no promises whatsoever regarding the length of his sentence.
It seems all of Big Media misunderstands this. We can shrug our shoulders, or we can try to correct the record. I intend to correct the record.
As I always, I do not act on behalf of my office. I act as a private citizen seeking the dissemination of truth.
I would like to enlist the help of readers in a) identifying other inaccurate news stories like this one, and b) identifying contact information for the news organizations who are botching this story. Tonight’s post is about a Reuters story; this morning’s was the AP. I’m reliably told by no less a personage than Eric Boehlert that Big Media sets itself apart from the Andrew Breitbarts of the world though its amazing ability to admit error (a trait that Boehlert does not share, but let’s not quibble over that right now!). So all we have to do is contact the AP and Reuters and these mistakes will be corrected straightaway.
P.S. In an unrelated story, today marks 19 days since I sent Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post a detailed letter regarding four separate inaccuracies by Anne Applebaum regarding Roman Polanski. (He is Applebaum’s editor. I wrote him after the ombudsman told me that factual inaccuracies in opinions pieces are Not His Yob — and I needed to write Hiatt if I had a problem with Applebaum’s blog entries. Which I did.)
No, Hiatt has not sent one word in response. No, I have not seen a correction of any of the four mistakes. Yes, I am very impressed with the professionalism and intense devotion to accuracy regularly displayed by Big Media.
It seems all of Big Media misunderstands this.
No, sir. They don’t misunderstand at all. Some are lazy, the rest choose to continue the lie.
Yours, and other blogs well monitored by the MSM, have made accurate accounts of the pleading readily available. And then there is the official record, which any third-rate j-school product knows how to check.
Intent or laziness. No other excuse.
Matador (e01f85) — 10/23/2009 @ 6:29 amIt isn’t just big media. The local Dubuque Rag has an arrogant editor who thinks all newspapers should be sacrosanct with no Ombudsman needed, no matter how many errors and lying propaganda you catch them printing. Print a lie about the GOP is fine with him, but point out the truth about Obama and you should be hanged from the flag pole in front of his building.
Oh, this newspaper you never point out a gay person doing wrong, even if they are raping children, unless it is a Catholic Priest.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/23/2009 @ 6:38 amFrom first-hand experience, I can tell you that to get the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times to run a correction when presented with facts that counter their reporting, they will do whatever they can NOT to publish a correction.
Anita Busch (fc416d) — 10/23/2009 @ 9:34 amNaturally, because your factual facts countering our own must be rigorously fact-checked. [so why wasn’t this done in the first place??? ] Ah, because “everybody knew” the unproven allegations that supported the reporters/editors’ world view would be correct, sorta like a hardcore Christian assuming all non-believers will ‘of course’ burn in hell, kaffirs that they are, and why waste breath on a irredeemable kaffir?
Californio (4a94c5) — 10/23/2009 @ 10:20 pmkaffir literally means = “non-believer”
Californio (4a94c5) — 10/23/2009 @ 10:20 pm