3 ms·
Did you read what you're replying to? The New York Times didn't buy into some sort of "propaganda campaign", nor were they part of it. If anything it proves th
by matt4077 9y ago
Did you read what you're replying to? The New York Times didn't buy into some sort of "propaganda campaign", nor were they part of it.
If anything it proves that journalism is doing quite well at the NYT, and the narrative of "bias" and "propaganda campaigns" is undermining civil society, and unfairly accusing people doing the best they can and mostly succeeding.
- makomk 9y agoSupposedly a good five or so publications passed over the Trump hotel communications with Russia story for the same reason, but ultimately it didn't matter that much because the moment one publication (Slate) was willing to publish their article went massively viral on social media, the Clinton campaign helped spread it, and huge numbers of people saw and believed it. We've effectively reduced the accuracy of the media as a whole to whatever the sloppiest, most view-hungry outlet is willing to put out that fits everyone's preferred narrative.
- rdtsc 9y ago> Did you read what you're replying to? The New York Times didn't buy into some sort of "propaganda campaign", nor were they part of it. I was replying to gp's comment about Liz Spayd criticizing Times