5 ms·

Seriously? You have gotten to the point in your extremism that the New York Times, one of the most respected news sources in the entire world is not factual to

by hiou 10y ago

Seriously? You have gotten to the point in your extremism that the New York Times, one of the most respected news sources in the entire world is not factual to the point it should be banned. How did the country seriously get to this point?

vonklaus 10y ago
I am on mobile, however I will amend with sources. The NYT dileberately held back stories and pushed forward the views if the Clinton campaign. If you accept that wikileaks emails are authentic, you can not accept NYT as legit. Maybe we can assume it was incompetence that their polling numbers (85-15) we wrong, and that is subjective admittedly. I personally feel this too was intentional. Edit: not to mention, like most media, it cant serve over https because of advertising refferers. How Their Polling Numbers Changed: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/796209661456347136 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/796209661456347136 How the HRC campaign used media to influence RNC and promote weakest candidates: https://twitter.com/wikileaks https://twitter.com/wikileaks Op Ed on why Wikileaks isn't whistleblowing: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/opinion/what-were-missing-while-we-obsess-over-john-podestas-email.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/opinion/what-were-missing-... here are some screencaps of various media companies front page and politics pages: http://imgur.com/a/v2huv http://imgur.com/a/v2huv I have to find the actual links to the wikileaks NYT stoiry placement emails, but this at least points out the narrative that was being crafted and why I dislike NYT. The fact that they were part of the reason we had Trump v. Cointon is enough for me to drp them. Trump & clinton are terrible people and the media (namely NYT) is the reason this was even possible.
dominotw 10y ago
>one of the most respected news sources Trump only has 20% chance of winning. Dow is going to tank a million points on Trump victory.
- vonklaus 10y ago
  I am no trump supporter, but their coverage was borderline dangerous. In the best case, wildly incompetent. Worst: bought & paid for propaganda. Hint: the receipts are in podesta & abedin's seized emails
- ashearer 10y ago
  If they predict a 20% chance of rain, and it does rain, that doesn't show dishonesty. The second point needs a citation.
  - rdiddly 10y ago
    It does if rational interpretation of solid evidence led to a forecast of 70% but instead they reported 20%.
    - ashearer 10y ago
      That's the question then--is it the case that any rational interpretation of the polls gave an actual forecast of least 70%, and the NYT lied? The parent seemed to be saying that election's outcome alone proved that the 20% number was not only wrong, but dishonest on top of it. You need some more ingredients to prove either of those things, though.
  - dominotw 10y ago
    >that doesn't show dishonesty. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213 Not disclosing the 'veto' in the article is pretty dishonest. don't you think? Running 20 front page anti-trump articles everyday and no criticism of Clinton doesn't show any dishonesty?
    - ashearer 10y ago
      This is why I don't get usually get involved in political discussions online. Someone who's committed to a position can always bring up new questions instead of responding to the original ones. (In this case I wasn't even taking a position, just pointing out where I found the logical reasoning unconvincing.) While both the new points you raise are open to debate, they shift the topic away from the two I was talking about. If I respond further we could be here forever.
  - vonklaus 10y ago
    Can you not understand how that is not only ibtellectually dishonest, but a terrible analogy
makomk 10y ago
It's possible that respect isn't entirely earned - indeed, even that their own reputation caused the New York Times to get an overblown sense of its own importance: http://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times-finds-time-for-soul-searching-1201852490/ http://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times-...

by hiou 10y ago

vonklaus 10y ago

I am on mobile, however I will amend with sources. The NYT dileberately held back stories and pushed forward the views if the Clinton campaign. If you accept that wikileaks emails are authentic, you can not accept NYT as legit. Maybe we can assume it was incompetence that their polling numbers (85-15) we wrong, and that is subjective admittedly. I personally feel this too was intentional. Edit: not to mention, like most media, it cant serve over https because of advertising refferers. How Their Polling Numbers Changed: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/796209661456347136 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/796209661456347136 How the HRC campaign used media to influence RNC and promote weakest candidates: https://twitter.com/wikileaks https://twitter.com/wikileaks Op Ed on why Wikileaks isn't whistleblowing: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/opinion/what-were-missing-while-we-obsess-over-john-podestas-email.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/opinion/what-were-missing-... here are some screencaps of various media companies front page and politics pages: http://imgur.com/a/v2huv http://imgur.com/a/v2huv I have to find the actual links to the wikileaks NYT stoiry placement emails, but this at least points out the narrative that was being crafted and why I dislike NYT. The fact that they were part of the reason we had Trump v. Cointon is enough for me to drp them. Trump & clinton are terrible people and the media (namely NYT) is the reason this was even possible.

dominotw 10y ago

>one of the most respected news sources Trump only has 20% chance of winning. Dow is going to tank a million points on Trump victory.

vonklaus 10y ago
I am no trump supporter, but their coverage was borderline dangerous. In the best case, wildly incompetent. Worst: bought & paid for propaganda. Hint: the receipts are in podesta & abedin's seized emails
ashearer 10y ago
If they predict a 20% chance of rain, and it does rain, that doesn't show dishonesty. The second point needs a citation.
- rdiddly 10y ago
  It does if rational interpretation of solid evidence led to a forecast of 70% but instead they reported 20%.
  - ashearer 10y ago
    That's the question then--is it the case that any rational interpretation of the polls gave an actual forecast of least 70%, and the NYT lied? The parent seemed to be saying that election's outcome alone proved that the 20% number was not only wrong, but dishonest on top of it. You need some more ingredients to prove either of those things, though.
- dominotw 10y ago
  >that doesn't show dishonesty. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213 Not disclosing the 'veto' in the article is pretty dishonest. don't you think? Running 20 front page anti-trump articles everyday and no criticism of Clinton doesn't show any dishonesty?
  - ashearer 10y ago
    This is why I don't get usually get involved in political discussions online. Someone who's committed to a position can always bring up new questions instead of responding to the original ones. (In this case I wasn't even taking a position, just pointing out where I found the logical reasoning unconvincing.) While both the new points you raise are open to debate, they shift the topic away from the two I was talking about. If I respond further we could be here forever.
- vonklaus 10y ago
  Can you not understand how that is not only ibtellectually dishonest, but a terrible analogy

makomk 10y ago

It's possible that respect isn't entirely earned - indeed, even that their own reputation caused the New York Times to get an overblown sense of its own importance: http://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times-finds-time-for-soul-searching-1201852490/ http://deadline.com/2016/11/shocked-by-trump-new-york-times-...