New York Times returns award after discredited news coverage

The New York Times is returning the prestigious “Peabody Award” it won for a podcast series in 2018.

The podcast was called “Caliphate,” and told the story of a man named Shehroze Chaudhry.

An internal investigation concluded the podcast did not meet accuracy standards.

The New York Times announced that Canadian and US intelligence and law enforcement officials consider Chaudhry to be “a fabulist who spun jihadist tales about killing for the Islamic State in Syria.”

I caught the subject of our podcast lying about key aspects of his account and reported that. I also didn’t catch other lies he told us, and I should have. I added caveats to try to make clear what we knew and what we didn’t. It wasn’t enough.

New York Times podcast host Rukmini Callimachi

The New York Times has not returned the Pulitzer Prize awarded in 2018 for its coverage of “the Trump team’s connections with the Russians and attempts to sway the F.B.I. director, James Comey.” The Washington Post also won the Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the topic.

Pulitzer Prize Administrator Dana Canedy told USA Today, “We stand behind the Pulitzer selection process, which has endured for 103 years. And the winning work speaks for itself.”

The New York Times has previously issued a statement defending its Trump-Russia coverage stating, “Russia actively worked to upend the American elections in 2016 and there were multiple instances of Trump Transition and Administration officials having contact with Russia.” 


Support the fight against government overreach in Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions.
Thanks to the thousands who have already supported!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 thoughts on “New York Times returns award after discredited news coverage”

  1. Sharyl,

    Re: Leftism — Marxism/feminism/Communism — in Journalism

    To more thoroughly understand the ‘N’ew York Times,
    one must study the historical, secretive intricacies
    underpinning these two terms:


    They’re a good beginning, then dive into psychology
    of political affiliation (( Hint: LEFT-hemisphere LOGICAl
    [[ masculine ]] vs. RIGHT-hemisphere EMOTIONAL
    [[ feminine ]]—my developing psychology, termed :
    “Politics of Cross-Lateralization,” explaining the ROOT
    CAUSE of the two opposing political camps; of conflict
    within each of us, projected out onto the world’s
    political stages )).


      1. P.P.S.


        Grab my below essay,
        then nix it from this page—
        re what “moderate” has
        come to mean in America :




        For those of you over forty years of age, have you noticed how the idea “center” ((or “moderate”)) keeps shifting leftward towards decadence [[ see Rep. Michael Forbes’ rant against Republican “extremists,” as he leaves the GOP for the “moderate” Democrat Party: “Rep. Forbes assails GOP,” Washington Times, p. C3, July 18 ]]?

        The political/social c e n t e r in the Fifties has become “right-wing extremism” in the Nineties, as the nation radically has moved leftward. And one of my favorite columnists, Charles Krauthammer, tries to defend today’s evil c e n t e r by calling rightists “wing-nuts,” and while leftists define today’s low-culture hedonism as the “moderate” position to uphold [[ “W. Owes Popularity to Political Twist,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, July 18, 1999 ]].

        If you could transport an American citizen living in, say, Los Angeles during the Fifties to the L.A. of the Nineties, he/she would think the nation had gone mad, had become very unsafe—very uncivil for families and communities, much like decadent Rome’s decline. And if you could transport a Nineties person to the Fifties, he/she would think America boring – if being entertained requires taking drugs and ingesting 4 hours of TV each day – but far more safe and civilized.

        To understand why the definition of “center” is shifting leftward is to understand the feminist mind’s need for chaos, for the e-m-o-t-i-o-n-a-l stimulation that c h a o s brings—is to understand the masculinist mind’s weakness for seduction (( the Eve syndrome )) while needing order and the emotional/physical security it provides.

        How do we define the term “civilized” or “gentleman” or “lady” in the Nineties? Don’t those terms appear to be useless today? Does anyone use them anymore?

        How were they defined in the 1950s, 1850s, or 1750s?

        Readers familiar with my scribblings know that, for me, all political and social conflicts can be reduced to that never-ending battle between mother and father (( feminine and masculine ))—between what I’ve termed “emoting feminine mind” and “rational masculine mind,” as they each correspond to one of the two hemispheres of the human brain (( left-hemisphere masculine defining the political right and right-hemisphere feminine defining the political left; keep in mind cross-lateralization, where the left hemisphere controls the right side of the body and right hemisphere the left )).

        Readers also know that I believe civilizations rise and fall according to which hemisphere predominates. It appears that the dominance of one or the other is generationally cyclical (( to either build or destroy civil societies )) and millennially cyclical (( to either build or destroy entire civilizations )). The masculine side (( logical )) builds high-culture civilization and the feminine side (( emotional )) destroys it (( An example is ancient Greece, where at its cultural heights it eschewed emotion for facts and logic and, then, declined as Greek theater and Greek tragedy – the rise of feminism and feminine arts – shifted the balance leftward towards the emotional. Ancient Rome suffered the same fate, as do present-day Western democracies under growing feminism )).

        Let’s all agree that the term “center” ought to be defined as high-culture civilization.

        But what defines “high culture” in today’s America?:

        1. Is it the broken families; is it the broken communities that tyrannical government effected through forced integration of blacks into them; is it the broken schools that tyrannical government effected through forced busing of blacks into them; is it the kids killing kids on the streets and in schools; is it the Hollywood films and African-based rap, gangsta-rap and hip-hop driving the killings; is it the teen-age girls and boys fornicating to spread diseases and have babies; is it teen girls’ now-lawful acquisition of abortions without parental knowledge or consent; is it the “partial birth” infanticides; is it those human slaughterhouses, built to remedy “accidents” from one-night stands and rampant hedonism; is it the AIDS-spreading gay bathhouses sanctioned by “civil” governments; is it the XXX pornography that has gone mainstream, in schools and homes and stores; is it those grade-schoolers having oral sex to avoid having “sex”; is it the borderless “nation” and its unbridled immigration, destroying white Western civilization in America; is it the idea “consumership” replacing the idea “citizenship,” and “New World Order” replacing “sovereignty”; is it White House orgies and the “no big deal” attitude of the hedonist majority; is it the vulgarities replacing honor and moral virtue in both citizenry and statesmen; is it homosexuality as normalcy and heterosexuality as “rape”; is it the American Psychological Association trying to mainstream pedophilia and fatherless homes; is it the American Library Association trying to peddle pornography to children in public libraries; is it the . . . ?

        And the list goes on and on and on to prove how decadent we’ve become through LEFTISM’s (( liberals’/libertines’ )) liberalism.

        How do Charles Krauthammer and other “centrists” define “high-culture civilization”?

        Who’s really nuts?

        Emoting feminist mind is evil. She
        rants until she gets her way, then
        she calls the newly established
        decadence “centrist” or “moderate”–
        then she rants again, and the rational
        masculinist mind retreats again to shift
        the center further leftward until,
        inevitably, we all find ourselves at
        dead center of a dying civilization
        (( read a world history book! )).

        Patrick Buchanan, Senator Robert Smith and other conservatives best represent the high-culture values that conceived and built the greatest civilization in history while reckless leftists raise up lechers and whores, not gentlemen and ladies.

        But who cares, so long as we’re all having fun in a nation eyebrow deep in the feminists’ doo-doo-driven, leftward-shifting “center”?


Scroll to Top