New York Times Issues Correction

One Down, One To Go

New York Times Corrects Franken Misquote


Looks like the New York Times can be more accurate, when pressed.

Today's edition corrects one of two errors in Friday's story discovered by Michelle Malkin, the Radio Equalizer and several other bloggers:


An article yesterday about state and city investigations of a loan made by a Bronx social service agency to the liberal radio network Air America quoted incorrectly from comments made on the air by Al Franken, the host of an Air America program.

Referring to Evan M. Cohen, a former official of the network whom Mr. Franken accused of having engineered the loan, from the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club, Mr. Franken said: "I don't know why they did it, and I don't know where the money went. I don't know if it was used for operations, which I imagine it was. I think he was robbing Peter to pay Paul." (He did not say: "I don't know why he did it. I don't know where the money went. I don't know if it was used for operations. I think he was borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.") (Go to Article)


No word on why Michelle Malkin's key discovery, that the city Department of Investigation did not provide the Times with a Franken transcript as claimed, has still gone uncorrected.

That's especially odd, since the DOI was said to be asking for one.

To the Radio Equalizer, that was key: readers weren't likely to dispute a transcript supplied by investigators. But the DOI didn't supply one and the Franken quote was way off.

It sure would be better to have the story right the first time, but hey, we'll have to take what we can get.

Meanwhile, Powerline published a letter today from David Mandel to the Times, asking all the right questions. Among them:


Sir: I write concerning "Bronx Boys Club Finances Investigated," Metro Section, August 12, 2005, B3.

1. There is nothing in the story to explain the huge delay in publishing this story. The case has been simmering for months. There is no date assigned to Air America's promise to repay these funds, although the piece itself refers to an agreement for repayment.

Why doesn't the story follow this? If the agreement was in writing why no mention of this, why no date, why no copy of it? Who were the people who made the agreement? Have any payments been made pursuant to it? The piece is mute on these important questions.

And this:

6. Why the dismissive wave of the NYTimes hand at the Internet and conservative websites. Yes, Michelle Malkin, Radio Equalizer, Hugh Hewitt and a bunch of others have carried the story for weeks and weeks. Their accounts are not contradicted by the NYTimes.

It is easy to see that Progressive websites refused to touch the story with a ten foot pole -- no enemies on the Left, wouldn't you say? Why was the NYTimes so stubbornly silent? Was the NYTimes hoping the scandal, amply documented, would go away if not acknowledged by it? Now if Rush had been involved...But let's not dwell on the obvious.

7. Last week a copy of an internal memo at Air America surfaced to show that Air America's payroll processor, the largest and most responsible in the world, had failed to make direct deposit to staffers on payday.

The suggestion that ADP was to blame, not that Air America had not met payroll requirements for ADP to make direct deposits, is loony. How come the NYTimes reporter couldn't find this out?


Click the above link to see the rest of this brilliant letter.

Here's one sent to the Radio Equalizer:

Mr. Calame:

So, 14 days after the subject story broke on the Internet the Tired Lady finally gets around to printing a rehash of the information that was largely available at least 10 days ago.

Your story contains a lengthy quote from Al Franken about the loans, with nothing more than a rehash of press release from AA's management. Mr. Franken may be lots of things, the CEO or CFO aren't among them.

He's "talent", not management and it's outrageous of both AA and your editors to place him in the position of speaking for the company.

Your story, given you've had two full weeks to investigate since it first hit the Internet and months since it first became public knowledge through a Bronx weekly, was not Pulitzer material, even for a newspaper that employed Walter Duranty.

• There is no follow up with the DOI or Eliot Spitzer's office about the details of the case, even though staff from the DOI have criticized the "agreement" by AA to repay the "loan".
• Why did the DOI get involved in the first place? Who tipped them that there might be a problem? How long have they been investigating? When do they expect to have the investigation concluded? Will there be indictments? Why did Spitzer's office get involved in the last week? Are they following up on information discovered by the DOI or do they have additional information, and if so from what sources?
• There is no discussion of the details of the "agreement", assuming there is one.
• There's no information about the details of the transaction in question. Was the "loan" personally guaranteed by any of the Progress Media principals. Several certainly have the financial resources to provide such a guarantee. Any financial institution or reputable lender would require a guarantee, given that AA was a start up and at the time of the loan was likely either insolvent or close to insolvent.
• Was this an interest-bearing note? Specifically how was it to be repaid? Was it secured in any fashion?
• There is no discussion about the fact that the current parent of AA, Piquant, LLC, has essentially the same ownership (less Cohen and one other individual) as the current parent, Progress Media.
• Nor any mention of the probability, given the previous public statements by the principals of Piquant/Progress, that the so-called asset sale of AA was nothing more than a sham purchase to rid the company of Evan Cohen and one other individual and to avoid repayment of the Gloria Wise loan.
• Or, about why at the time of the "asset sale" of Progress to Piquant, Progress Media didn't just file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy to legally buy time to reorganize their business. Given the statements made by the principals contemporaneous to the sale, that would appear to have been a more proper - and more legal - option for the parent company.
• Nor anything indicating AAR may have significant problems repaying the "loan", given that they missed their last payroll and have attempted to put the blame on their payroll provider ADP. Where is request for information from Piquant's management for their current financial statements.

Mr. Calame, the "effort" of the Times so far isn't worthy of a high school weekly.

The Times can afford to assign reporters to investigate the adoption records of John Roberts children. I'm guessing you have reporters on the scene in Crawford, TX to record Cindy Sheehan's every thought.

Yet you can't provide any new information and your initial story does not indicate any further investigation of corporate malfeasance and greed that appears to steal from poor children, the elderly and lines the pockets of the wealthy.

The Times, a once proud paper who could rightly point to "All The News That's Fit To Print" with pride is a rotting hulk waiting for burial. The Post and Sun have both eclipsed the Times.

Rest in Peace,

Michael Becker

Phoenix, AZ

(Scandal graphic by Martin Archer, Thieves by MarchandChronicles)

The Radio Equalizer still needs your help covering expenses for a site upgrade project. Your Amazon orders that begin here help with these costs. Thanks again.