Issuing an apology on behalf of the New York Post

Andy writes, "As you guys know, the New York Post made some pretty terrible editorial decisions following the Boston Marathon attacks, including putting two innocent kids on the cover. Someone wrote a fake letter of apology from the paper's editor and inserted it into a bunch of papers around NYC, and ANIMAL made a video about it. Take a look!"

The Apology the New York Post Should Have Issued - ANIMAL (Thanks, Andy!)

Discuss

19 Responses to “Issuing an apology on behalf of the New York Post”

  1. Boundegar says:

    That’s pretty remarkable, but I doubt the Post will be shamed into a real apology.  I never got the impression they are even capable of shame.

    • cyvokarepyl says:

      my co-worker’s sister-in-law makes $84 every hour on the computer. She has been fired from work for seven months but last month her check was $17486 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on  Jive8.c­om

  2. That_Anonymous_Coward says:

    Weren’t there laws or something about ‘Yellow Journalism’ at some point?
    It could be a slippery slope, I totally get that, but given what is passed off as fact by ‘news’ outlets today is half a step up from the World Weekly News interviewing Bat Boy about his upcoming wedding.
    Retractions in 4 pt font on page 97c no longer should be acceptable ways for them to walk away from failing to report actual facts.

  3. G3 says:

    Much respect. That guy has earned his Schrute bucks. 

  4. ocschwar says:

    Since their fuckups, the NYPost has disabled the comments feature on their website. Probably because the secion was flooded with people calling them out. 

  5. Gilbert Wham says:

    I’d like to see a law mandating that all falsehoods, fuckups and other sundry retractions HAVE to be printed on the front page, with a 72-point headline, not tucked away at the back under the small ads.

    • Stephen Rice says:

      Or at least equal to the incorrect coverage. Spend pages 1-3 of your newspaper calling someone a terrorist? Be required to spend pages 1-3 of your newspaper apologising.

  6. Warren_Terra says:

    Surely the Post is liable to a civil lawsuit for defamation and libel? Possibly even reckless endangerment? From either of the two young men whose picture they put on the cover of the 600,000 or more copies they print each day, with text strongly implying they were the bombers, or from the young Saudi man they calumnied?

  7. John Donohoe says:

    Unfortunately, the type of people that would work at the Post would watch this video and think “awesome, we got some free publicity and some suckers handing out our papers for free.”

  8. theophrastvs says:

    There have been solid cases of such heinous newspaper screw-ups where those offended have successfully sued the newspaper into bankruptcy.   The new york post obviously has very deep pockets, but i’d say that’s worthy of encouragement for those two innocents to get themselves a ruthless lawyer.  (bet they could find good ones that would even work for a cut “pro bono”)

  9. millie fink says:

    It reads like a perfectly reasonable apology. Well written too. Both of which make it unsuited for that smelly fish-wrap.

  10. Petzl says:

    Gee, is Glenn Beck also going to issue a apology, too?  (He’s jumped on the “Saudi” as evidence that Boston was another “inside job.”)
     

  11. Finnagain says:

    So this is a video about a letter. And we don’t even get to read the letter. 

  12. liquidself says:

    My respect these days for reporters is just slightly above my respect for the ‘profession’ claiming to be economist.

  13. Ryan_T_H says:

    I think a perfect solution is to mandate that all corrections and retractions appear on the same newspaper page (or the same TV timeslot) as the original article, in the same font size and title size. And all retractions must take up the same number of column inches (or minutes) as the statements being retracted.

  14. Josh Gardner says:

    I can’t find any information right now, but I’m pretty sure there’s legal precedent that this kind of unauthorized newspaper insert is actually illegal and a violation of free speech. I don’t disagree with it’s use in this instance, but imagine it’s white power hate speech in the NAACP newsletter and can see how it’s problematic. If I remember correctly, the case that went to the supreme court had to do with a Christian group putting evangelistic newsletters into a mainstream paper without authorization.

Leave a Reply