Honest question: How is publishing scientifically bogus columns in nation's most esteemed paper different than fake news?
-
-
I'm not the one saying "fake news" shouldn't be published. But I do want to know how "real" news makes distinction.
-
Seeing conservative Twitter, they just seem to be happy the left is upset. Even the non-Trump GOP runs on nothing more than spite these days
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Always delighted when people reinforce my view.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Great point. Main difference seems to be intentions. NYT & Stephens believe what he wrote was not fake. But it's still wrong. And to readers
-
publisher/writer's intentions doesn't matter when finished product is just as fake as hoax news sites.
-
Though functional/practical difference is hoax news is always fake, whereas NYT is sometimes fake
-
Which makes it harder to discern, coming from the Times.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Main bbc political interviewer Andrew Neil published much as editor of Sunday Tinescsaying HIV didn't cause AIDS-still denies climate change
Thanks. 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.