3 ms·

But NYTimes might be mistaken in its reporing?

by hrasyid 10y ago

actsasbuffoon 10y ago
I doubt it. Reputable news sources require at least two independent sources before they'll print a story. If NYT didn't have multiple current or former employees telling them about this then you wouldn't be reading this story.
- WildUtah 10y ago
  Hahahaha. The New York Times is hardly a reliable source known to journalistic ethics or objectivity. It worked with Dubya Bush to push the Iraq war and worked hard to cover up Bush deliberately exposing intelligence agents through the newspaper in an attempt to get them killed for revealing malfeasance to Congress and the people. They reversed their editorial position on the balance of immigration enforcement techniques immediately and completely upon accepting a billion dollar investment from the Mexican telecom monopolist Carlos Slim. And their campaign and Trump and Russia coverage has been a jumble of lies, bias, and credulity for the past six months. Any given reporter or story may be fine, but depending on NY Times as an institution is just bad judgement.
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    It's concerning to see this narrative already working, considering a Carlos Slim "billion dollar investment" in the NYT is, itself, a lie. The good news for you is that a transaction that large would be public record, so I look forward to being proven wrong with a citation. (I suggest you look up the market capitalization of The New York Times Company.)
    - WildUtah 10y ago
      On the order of 1bn, but my memory of exact figures from a decade ago needed refreshing. In fact only $350 million of corrupt foreign monopolist cash is enough to buy the editorial position of America's premier source of fake news. Good luck defending the NY Times on that basis.
      - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
        He increased his investment by $100ish million in 2015, which more than doubled his stake. This is easily found via Google, and is on the order of an order of magnitude below a billion dollars. You can't just make things up while decrying fake news. The trend line on these goalposts moving will eventually lead to an investment I can afford. This is even beyond my position on the paper. You're just typing complete falsehoods and expecting to get away with it now, which is sad.

But NYTimes might be mistaken in its reporing?

by hrasyid 10y ago

But NYTimes might be mistaken in its reporing?

I doubt it. Reputable news sources require at least two independent sources before they'll print a story. If NYT didn't have multiple current or former employees telling them about this then you wouldn't be reading this story.

WildUtah 10y ago
Hahahaha. The New York Times is hardly a reliable source known to journalistic ethics or objectivity. It worked with Dubya Bush to push the Iraq war and worked hard to cover up Bush deliberately exposing intelligence agents through the newspaper in an attempt to get them killed for revealing malfeasance to Congress and the people. They reversed their editorial position on the balance of immigration enforcement techniques immediately and completely upon accepting a billion dollar investment from the Mexican telecom monopolist Carlos Slim. And their campaign and Trump and Russia coverage has been a jumble of lies, bias, and credulity for the past six months. Any given reporter or story may be fine, but depending on NY Times as an institution is just bad judgement.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  It's concerning to see this narrative already working, considering a Carlos Slim "billion dollar investment" in the NYT is, itself, a lie. The good news for you is that a transaction that large would be public record, so I look forward to being proven wrong with a citation. (I suggest you look up the market capitalization of The New York Times Company.)
  - WildUtah 10y ago
    On the order of 1bn, but my memory of exact figures from a decade ago needed refreshing. In fact only $350 million of corrupt foreign monopolist cash is enough to buy the editorial position of America's premier source of fake news. Good luck defending the NY Times on that basis.
    - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
      He increased his investment by $100ish million in 2015, which more than doubled his stake. This is easily found via Google, and is on the order of an order of magnitude below a billion dollars. You can't just make things up while decrying fake news. The trend line on these goalposts moving will eventually lead to an investment I can afford. This is even beyond my position on the paper. You're just typing complete falsehoods and expecting to get away with it now, which is sad.