Donate

New York Times Wondering Whether It Should Tell the Truth About Anything

News

At least he doesn't have a Twitter account ...Lie-plagued yuppie lifestyle app The New York Times has a big problem. On the one hand, it wants to have lots of link-bait articles full of lies -- anything a politician says, "yoga will kill you," etc. On the other hand, it has a few nervous-nelly editors wondering whether there is some "market share potential" in occasionally publishing the truth about events, people and situations. This is the newspaper that has blindly supported every imperial war since 9/11, and has blindly nodded its consent to global supervillains such as Dick Cheney and Alan Greenspan. And now it's suddenly having a conversation with itself about whether it should note which things are obviously true or untrue. Whatever, Noam Chomsky!


This, from the milquetoast schoolmarm currently employed as the "public editor" of the NYT:

I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.

One example mentioned recently by a reader: As cited in an Adam Liptak article on the Supreme Court, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had “misunderstood” a financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife’s earnings from the Heritage Foundation. The reader thought it not likely that Mr. Thomas “misunderstood,” and instead that he simply chose not to report the information.

Another example: on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for America,” a phrase to which Paul Krugman objected in a December 23 column arguing that politics has advanced to the “post-truth” stage.

Wow, where to begin? Maybe just don't, and instead link to Choire Sicha's post at The Awl, where he notes that 99% of the commenters at the NYT are bizarrely in favor of the Paper of Record reporting actual facts. [The Awl/NYT/Metafilter]

$
Donate with CC

Lace up your sneakers, Wonkers! Time to hit the streets. MoveOn, the ACLU, MomsRising and all your favorite dirty leftists are getting together for a yuuuuuuuuge march to show that WE ARE A NATION OF DECENT FUCKING HUMAN BEINGS WHO DON'T KIDNAP BABIES. And your Wonkette will be there!

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC

Rudy Giuliani, flapping his loose yap to Politico on Monday:

President Donald Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani said on Monday that he was actually just bluffing last week when he called for Justice Department leaders to suspend special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation within 24 hours.

"I didn't think it would," Giuliani told POLITICO with a laugh when asked about the Mueller inquiry's still being very much an active investigation. "But I still think it should be." [...]

That's what I'm supposed to do," Giuliani explained on Monday. "What am I supposed to say? That they should investigate him forever? Sorry, I'm not a sucker."

Cool, that is just Rudy Giuliani admitting he's full of shit and words and more shit and more words (and also a noun, a verb and 9/11). We are guessing therefore that Giuliani, who is a lawyer, would legally advise us to continue assuming we should take his every oral ejaculation with a gi-normous grain of FULL OF SHIT.

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC
Donate

SINGLE & MONTHLY DONATIONS

SUPPORT THE CAUSE - PAYPAL DONATION

PAYPAL RECURRING DONATIONS

©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc

SUPPORT THE CAUSE

Donate