3 ms·
Wikileaks revealed that the NYT was in coordination with HRC's campaign to publish flattering stories. I think the credibility of the news organization is over
by grandalf 10y ago
Wikileaks revealed that the NYT was in coordination with HRC's campaign to publish flattering stories. I think the credibility of the news organization is over.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- stephth 10y agoThey survived the Judith Miller controversy. What is it about the HRC-NYT emails that ends their credibility in ways that Judith Miller didn't? edit: I can't think of a good reason to downvote this question (please do explain), but I'll rephrase: the Judith Miller Iraq reporting was bad to say the least, and they got rid of her. In this case I am under the impression that the problem is a few isolated cases, but I'm not well educated and am possibly missing something. What about these emails makes this a sweeping issue over the whole organization, as opposed to a few reporters having abused their welcome?
- jacobolus 10y agoJudith Miller and the NYT’s (and news media more generally) credulous Iraq War boosterism were much more damning. Most of the folks involved, either on the media side or the government side, suffered absolutely no consequence to their reputations.
- grandalf 10y ago> Most of the folks involved, either on the media side or the government side, suffered absolutely no consequence to their reputations. I still cannot believe this. In fact, it's probably the single most poignant fact of the Iraq war. It shows us that the NYT was not outraged by the "mistake" but supported what was effectively a propaganda effort. This is why I liken the NYT to America's Pravda. The stories it runs help to bolster the legitimacy of certain institutions and create PR and misdirection as needed to allow the status quo to continue.