Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Thread: The NYT’s Chief Editor Confesses His Paper Led A Hoax For The Last Two Years

  1. #16
    Join Date
    04-23-02
    Location
    SW Colorado
    Posts
    4,959
    The problem is it is a lie, and dummies in their NY cages believe it, and possibly change the outcome of elections.

    The dismissal of this outrage is the precursor to media puppets controlling politics. Bloomie can say whatever he wants about himself in 4 years.

    The "Bush lied" crowd dismissing this as no big deal is stunning hypocrisy.
    "Back after 5 years. I thought you had died.

    don"


    Splitting my time between the montane and the mesas

    The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    10-21-01
    Location
    San Antonio, Tx.
    Posts
    18,387
    “The Newspaper Of Record” first spends 2 1/2 years primarily devoted to selling the proposition that a candidate, and then president, is a Russian collaborator, admits it, and then switches to the proposition that the United States of America was founded in 1619 primarily upon slavery and got Pulitzers for both whoppers is not important to recognize?
    ...............
    “You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.” — Too fundamental to have an attribution


  3. #18
    Join Date
    10-22-01
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    38,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    That's true. We all know it, so why waste time arguing about it? We should spend that time figuring out how to counter news providers gone wild.

    In my opinion, the news media should only report the news. The reports should be pure, no spinning allowed. No slants allowed. The news media can still have its traditional "opinions", but only in the editorial section. That's where it belongs.
    While that would be a supremely honorable outcome, it would violate the principle of free speech. There is also another conundrum with that thought---who gets to decide what is pure truth?

    Human nature leads many of us to "agreeable sources", which in and of itself is not as much an issue as what we do with that. The intellectually lazy will stop at that point of comfort and believe that is the only truth--there in lies the real issue.
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” ---Sir Winston Churchill
    "Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." ---John W. Gardner
    “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” ---C. S. Lewis

  4. #19
    Join Date
    10-14-01
    Location
    TEXAS!
    Posts
    14,571
    Quote Originally Posted by wacojoe View Post
    “The Newspaper Of Record” first spends 2 1/2 years primarily devoted to selling the proposition that a candidate, and then president, is a Russian collaborator, admits it, and then switches to the proposition that the United States of America was founded in 1619 primarily upon slavery and got Pulitzers for both whoppers is not important to recognize?
    Of course it is important to recognize, the same way it is important to recognize venomous snakes before playing with them. Take it for what it is and then line the bird cage.
    The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible - Arthur C. Clarke

  5. #20
    Join Date
    10-21-01
    Location
    San Antonio, Tx.
    Posts
    18,387
    My original post exposed the Times editor directing his minions to divert attention from the years past when the paper’s writers had been almost exclusively guided to promoting the paper’s efforts furthering the Trump/Russia hoax to the tune of 18,000 articles and towards their new scam of the 1619 project. Recently, the paper published an article by its sole quasi-conservative, Bret Stephens, which critiqued the 1619 Project. That mere act of publishing any criticism of the sacred project was met with umbrage by its staff in the form of a tweet by the New York Times Guild, its Union, which excoriated the publishing as an affront to the membership.

    ...To start with, this is a case of journalists using their union not to demand greater editorial freedom or journalistic independence — something one would reasonably expect from a journalists’ union — but demanding its opposite: that writers at the New York Times be prohibited by management from expressing their views and perspectives about the controversies surrounding the 1619 Project. In other words: They are demanding that their own journalistic colleagues be silenced and censored. What kind of journalists plead with management for greater restrictions on journalistic expression rather than fewer?

    ... A belief in the virtues of free expression was once a cornerstone of the journalistic spirit. Guilds and unions fought against editorial control, not demanded greater amounts be imposed by management. They defended colleagues when they were accused by editorial or corporate bosses of “rules” violations, not publicly tattled and invited, even advocated for, workplace disciplinary measures.

    But a belief in free expression is being rapidly eclipsed in many societal sectors by a belief in the virtues of top-down managerial censorship, silencing, and enhanced workplace punishment for thought and speech transgressions. As this imperious but whiny New York Times Guild condemnation reflects, this trend can be seen most vividly, and most destructively, in mainstream American journalism. Nothing guts the core function of journalism more than this mindset.

    https://theintercept.com/2020/10/11/...or-colleagues/
    This is by Glenn Greenwald, hardly a right-wing mouthpiece. The good news is that the NYTs published the piece; the bad news is that the paper is infested with that kind of staff and is stealthily acceding to their whims with unacknowledged edits.
    Last edited by wacojoe; 10-13-2020 at 11:23 AM.
    ...............
    “You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.” — Too fundamental to have an attribution


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •