So if the NYTimes is such a bastion of credibility, how do you explain this newsdiff? This isn't just outright slanted, the article was originally neutral and

So if the NYTimes is such a bastion of credibility, how do you explain this newsdiff? This isn't just outright slanted, the article was originally neutral and somebody decided it needed to be edited from a factual report into a heroic tale in the battle for social justice: https://archive.is/t4EVf https://archive.is/t4EVf This is textbook propaganda, so perfect you could use it as classroom material. Furthermore, we hear so much about social media filter bubbles, but it doesn't seem to occur to contemporary reporters that if they write stories based on what they see and hear on their own social feed, it is going to be equally skewed and subject to a massive preselected availability bias of their own making. If you wanted to effectively manipulate the news, you'd organize massive protests and disruptions right outside every news station... Well, now this is the default mode for much of what you hear. Every time you read any story about online sentiment that is not explicitly statistical and honest and precise in its conclusions, it's pretty much bullshit from top to bottom for this reason. Now, before you say this doesn't apply to "real" news in the "real" world, I remind you that the topics they haven't been able to shut up about for 5 minutes is Trump's tweeting, Russian trolls, and the online anger of a supposedly pervasive alt-right, and that they blame everything from Brexit to Charlottesville on that. This includes people who are frequently misquoted, misconstrued and misrepresented at a level that, if it isn't malice, is chronic and incurable professional incompetence. Their incentives are not aligned with mine, because to me, truth and skepticism are foundational values.