Thanks to the Byron Calame, Public Editor of the New York Times, we are made to see how "fake, but accurate" reporting is allowed by the New York Times. The case is Geraldo Rivera versus Alessandra Stanley, who I have criticized in several recent posts.

Even Geraldo Deserves a Fair Shake

My viewings of the videotape - at least a dozen times, including one time frame by frame - simply doesn't show me any "nudge" of any Air Force rescuer by Mr. Rivera. (Ms. Stanley declined my invitation to watch the tape with me.) I also reviewed all of the so-called outtakes shot by Mr. Rivera's camera crew at the Holy Angels Apartments in New Orleans on the morning of Sept. 4. Neither the video nor the audio revealed any nudge of an Air Force rescuer. As for the Air Force, the matter "is not an issue," a spokesman told me last week.

Stripped of its speculation in defense of Ms. Stanley, Mr. Keller's e-mail to me explaining his decision winds up acknowledging that the "nudge" she reported seeing is not shown in the videotape. Here, with my emphasis added, is that key paragraph of his e-mail:

"It was a semi-close call, in that the video does not literally show how Mr. Rivera insinuated himself between the wheelchair-bound storm victim and the Air Force rescuers who were waiting to carry her from the building. Whether Mr. Rivera gently edged the airman out of the way with an elbow (literally 'nudged'), or told him to step aside, or threw a body block, or just barged into an opening - it's hard to tell, since it happened just off-camera."

So if Ms. Stanley couldn't have seen the nudge, why not publish a correction? Mr. Keller's message unfortunately turns to a line of reasoning that raises, for me, a basic question of journalistic fairness. He suggests, "frankly," that in light of Mr. Rivera's reaction to the review, Ms. Stanley "would have been justified in assuming" - and therefore writing, apparently - that Mr. Rivera used "brute force" rather than merely a "nudge" on Sept. 4. (One of the on-air threats cited by Mr. Keller, however, actually was made by Bill O'Reilly.)

Does not literally show?!? I thought the objective of a journalist is to present the facts, not make them up!

It seems that the Times is on a slippery slope that allows them to invent actions by people they are reporting on as long as it fits their personality or a particular point of view they're trying to get across.

The Times should really fire Stanley - she is an embarrassment to the integrity of what used to be a great newspaper. The newspaper should change their motto from "All the News That's Fit To Print" to "The Greatest Story Ever Told".