3 ms·
I don’t think it’s toxic to apply the utmost scrutiny to outlets like NYT. There have been many events that have demonstrated their decided lack of journalistic
by malvosenior 9y ago
I don’t think it’s toxic to apply the utmost scrutiny to outlets like NYT. There have been many events that have demonstrated their decided lack of journalistic integrity (silently editing articles after publication, overt bias, playing with release timing...).
The internet has broken mainstream media’s monopoly on “the truth” so it seems a natural next step that they are viewed objectively based on their actions instead of their perceived and heavily marketed position of authority.
Postmodernism itself is the byproduct of the Information Age giving people access to multiple viewpoints. I’m glad to see the playing field leveled.
- vkou 9y agoUnfortunately, it's been leveled so much, we're below sea level. I despise propaganda as much as... Well, I despise it. Unfortunately, the winners of 'breaking the MSM's monopoly on Truth' aren't any better then what they replaced (And are in many ways, much worse.) Their output is, by far and large, the worst kind of yellow journalism. Unsurprisingly, nobody actually wants the truth. The people shouting from the rooftops about corruption and bias, and collusion in the NYT turn around and uncritically read about how Hillary is in cahoots with gay alien pedophiles operating out of the back room of a pizza joint. Or, alternatively, how this is totally the week that Trump's finished. (And did you see the great burn some celebrity gave him?)
- malvosenior 9y agoI think that’s a bit of a straw-man. You can be critical of the NYT _and_ Brietbart (I know I am!).
- throwawaymanbot 9y agoAt least editing Articles points to some form of thoughtful correction. I see you are trying to paint that in a negative light. What Brietbart (your laughable news source) posts is pure Dross. (Being polite about it)