> It is rare for any to publish corrections It happens all the goddamn time, but there are also reasonably stringent editorial controls that prevent blatant mi

> It is rare for any to publish corrections It happens all the goddamn time, but there are also reasonably stringent editorial controls that prevent blatant mistruths from getting through. RT never corrects the record after it has been shown to publish government-manufactured stories. > When Edward Snowden wanted to leak information about massive dishonesty and conspiracy by the NSA in domestic surveillance, he did not go to the NY Times. That tells us all we need to know. No it doesn't - it just describes the very particular evidence (the possession of which constituted a federal crime) and the knowledge that it was safer in the hands of journalists overseas. > Oddly in all of the coverage of Assange amid these allegations, the NYT did not think it relevant to mention this very important difference in the legal meaning of the word rape in Sweden vs the US. > we did not get a clear and accurate accounting of the nature of the alleged act from the NYT That's bollocks. If you bother to look, they're there: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/world/europe/29iht-letter29.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/world/europe/29iht-letter2... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.htm...