3 ms·

It's the NYT so my initial hunch would be verifying sources in duplicate and/or triplicate depending on the claims. This is international spycraft. Not quite Ga

It's the NYT so my initial hunch would be verifying sources in duplicate and/or triplicate depending on the claims. This is international spycraft. Not quite Gary Powers getting shot down over the USSR, but very high stakes nonetheless.

natch 9y ago
The NYT is not all that. Read with care, and you'll notice a lot of stuff is couched, and rather than statements of fact, there are statements of fact about statements. For example, notice how many times the word pair "officials said" appears in the article. In other words, yes it may be a fact that a source said X, but a lot of people read that as "NYT said X" which is not at all what NYT is saying.
- 6stringmerc 9y ago
  What you have described to me is a "bounce house" of dealing with the world, so, my only question to you is how much are you paid per word for the Government service you are representing? I'm inquiring for the sake of market value. I certainly don't want to become a shill and be underpaid for my services.
  - natch 9y ago
    Ignoring the silly reddit-style rhetoric and getting to your underlying implied suspicion: On the contrary, the perspective I was offering, if understood, would tend to deflate the value of statements that the government spoon feeds to the media, often intentionally and through anonymous officials. The problem is that many people don't read the NYT literally. They read the statements as vetted statements of fact about the matters at hand, instead of vetted statements of fact about statements. The NYT knows this. The government knows this. So they use it to advance their agendas. Not that their interests are often aligned, but they sometimes are. And when their interests are not aligned, they still try to use each other and use the basic misunderstanding many people have about facts about statements versus facts about events. I do believe the NYT tries to be factual when a close reading is done.

natch 9y ago

The NYT is not all that. Read with care, and you'll notice a lot of stuff is couched, and rather than statements of fact, there are statements of fact about statements. For example, notice how many times the word pair "officials said" appears in the article. In other words, yes it may be a fact that a source said X, but a lot of people read that as "NYT said X" which is not at all what NYT is saying.

6stringmerc 9y ago
What you have described to me is a "bounce house" of dealing with the world, so, my only question to you is how much are you paid per word for the Government service you are representing? I'm inquiring for the sake of market value. I certainly don't want to become a shill and be underpaid for my services.
- natch 9y ago
  Ignoring the silly reddit-style rhetoric and getting to your underlying implied suspicion: On the contrary, the perspective I was offering, if understood, would tend to deflate the value of statements that the government spoon feeds to the media, often intentionally and through anonymous officials. The problem is that many people don't read the NYT literally. They read the statements as vetted statements of fact about the matters at hand, instead of vetted statements of fact about statements. The NYT knows this. The government knows this. So they use it to advance their agendas. Not that their interests are often aligned, but they sometimes are. And when their interests are not aligned, they still try to use each other and use the basic misunderstanding many people have about facts about statements versus facts about events. I do believe the NYT tries to be factual when a close reading is done.