15 ms·

FWIW National Enquirer etc. existed for ages and no one seemed to mind. There's plenty of fake news to go around... What about "I am a NYT reader and I read it

FWIW National Enquirer etc. existed for ages and no one seemed to mind. There's plenty of fake news to go around... What about "I am a NYT reader and I read it every day with the hopes to tell me who is a better candidate" and I read it, diligently, not knowing that the information is being fed from one candidate? Isn't that lousy?

maxerickson 10y ago
The people that sued them (many won!) cared. Celebrities winning a libel suit means you are doing a pretty shitty job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer#Notable_stories_and_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer#Notable_stor... And like I said, it's totally fine to be concerned with the quality of the content of the NYT. Just don't mix it up with the quality problems at the National Enquirer, which are a different thing entirely.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  That's not a great characterization of your link. The Enquirer has a very good record for a publication so venerable and vicious, and rarely loses libel suits. People tend to confuse it mentally with the Weekly World News, which was awesome, proud to be fake news of no consequence, and shelved in checkout lines right next to the Enquirer.