you guys, stop reading NYTimes, just stop paying attention to it
-
-
Replying to @danlistensto
I get complaints about bias, but are they factually inaccurate?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @StubbornLights
sometimes? hard to make a comprehensive statement about that
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto
You're going to have to do better if you're saying they're on the level of Fox News. Don't chuck out the baby with the bathwater. Ignore the opinion page, ignore some of their editorial choices, but I have not seen major retractions from them.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @StubbornLights
the most eye-opening thing for me was the coverage of the Sanders primary campaign. there were several incidents where they actually had falsehoods in news stories which were then stealth-edited out of the story a few hours later without a correction/retraction statement
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto
Oh yeah. Their Sanders coverage was horrible, especially the article that was edited to be harsher. But with people ready to "fake news" any fact they don't like, I think it's worth distinguishing bias/slant and outright incorrectness.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @StubbornLights
they repeated the pattern of their Sanders coverage again recently with their coverage (and lack of coverage) of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' campaign
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto
Yeah. I'm not saying NYT is perfect. I may've come off a tad more aggressive in this than intended, bc I'd been mulling on the hate I see for journalism in general here, but I still think there's a massive difference in NYT and Fox News. NYT can be better, but it's not the worst
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @StubbornLights
we're just gonna disagree on this. the NYTimes has been bad for decades, but its decline into Fox News tier has been the characteristic shift in that organization over the last 5 years or so. they've tilted hard into grievance driven identity politics and unfounded rumoring
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto
What do you mean by unfounded rumoring? I'm 100% with you on their coverage of Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez being awful, but I think it's useful have a distinction between truth/bias. If you wanna drop it that's fine obv
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
if you know what you're looking for you'll see it all over their politics coverage. anytime you see a news article with a quote from "a high ranking white house official" otherwise unnamed, consider that a rumor, a leak, or a lie.
-
-
Replying to @danlistensto
That's standard journalistic practice when reporting on info from a source that doesn't want to be named. If it's a genuine leak, it's their job to cultivate sources like that. I get what you mean about reporting on rumors, though.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.