4 ms·

Of all the places where you could find "epstein news" you choose to link the New York Post.

by ouid 7y ago

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
I would honestly love to link to a trusted MSM report, but these outlets have been burying Epstein stories[1]. It's awful. 1. https://www.newsweek.com/abc-jeffrey-epstein-story-amy-robach-prince-andrew-1469893 https://www.newsweek.com/abc-jeffrey-epstein-story-amy-robac...
- deusofnull 7y ago
  Miami herald for the big story last spring that lead to a lot of this coming back up.
- ouid 7y ago
  I'm not criticizing the New York Post for being too indie. I'm criticizing them for being profoundly untrustworthy.
  - mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
    Can you provide examples?
    - bduerst 7y ago
      They have a string of controversies like most news organizations, but I think they may be referring to the fact it is owned by News Corp, which is run by Rupert Murdoch who is notorious for companies like Fox News.
- noelsusman 7y ago
  The New York Post story you linked is just a write up of original reporting done by CBS. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-accuser-maria-farmer-says-his-house-under-constant-tv-surveillance/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-accuser-maria-f...
  - 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
    That article is from nov 18th versus 5th? Besides, for credibility they should have been writing about the obvious problems with Epstein, and everyone but fringe outlets were basically silent over the last decade(s), and in some cases complicit (abc news).
    - noelsusman 7y ago
      Both articles are from November 18th. The New York Post one is from four hours later and just summarizes the CBS interview. Your New York Post article links to the CBS one and leads with a picture of the woman telling her story on CBS.
- Bedon292 7y ago
  Except it "didn't air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC's editorial standards about her allegations." This should be an article about journalistic integrity, and ensuring we don't accuse people of things without corroborating evidence. Just because more evidence came out after that point, does not mean it was wrong to require more evidence at the time. I cannot see how this is anything other than a good thing.
malvosenior 7y ago
The New York Post has actually been one of the most consistent places for breaking Epstein news. Most major news outlets have employees implicated with Epstein and have reported (or not) accordingly. It's quite telling when the corruption and scandal is so large that only "fringe" outlets are able to report on in. Also cf. with Ronan Farrow and Weinstein.

Of all the places where you could find "epstein news" you choose to link the New York Post.

by ouid 7y ago

Of all the places where you could find "epstein news" you choose to link the New York Post.

I would honestly love to link to a trusted MSM report, but these outlets have been burying Epstein stories[1]. It's awful. 1. https://www.newsweek.com/abc-jeffrey-epstein-story-amy-robach-prince-andrew-1469893 https://www.newsweek.com/abc-jeffrey-epstein-story-amy-robac...

deusofnull 7y ago
Miami herald for the big story last spring that lead to a lot of this coming back up.
ouid 7y ago
I'm not criticizing the New York Post for being too indie. I'm criticizing them for being profoundly untrustworthy.
- mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
  Can you provide examples?
  - bduerst 7y ago
    They have a string of controversies like most news organizations, but I think they may be referring to the fact it is owned by News Corp, which is run by Rupert Murdoch who is notorious for companies like Fox News.
noelsusman 7y ago
The New York Post story you linked is just a write up of original reporting done by CBS. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-accuser-maria-farmer-says-his-house-under-constant-tv-surveillance/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-accuser-maria-f...
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
  That article is from nov 18th versus 5th? Besides, for credibility they should have been writing about the obvious problems with Epstein, and everyone but fringe outlets were basically silent over the last decade(s), and in some cases complicit (abc news).
  - noelsusman 7y ago
    Both articles are from November 18th. The New York Post one is from four hours later and just summarizes the CBS interview. Your New York Post article links to the CBS one and leads with a picture of the woman telling her story on CBS.
Bedon292 7y ago
Except it "didn't air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC's editorial standards about her allegations." This should be an article about journalistic integrity, and ensuring we don't accuse people of things without corroborating evidence. Just because more evidence came out after that point, does not mean it was wrong to require more evidence at the time. I cannot see how this is anything other than a good thing.

malvosenior 7y ago

The New York Post has actually been one of the most consistent places for breaking Epstein news. Most major news outlets have employees implicated with Epstein and have reported (or not) accordingly. It's quite telling when the corruption and scandal is so large that only "fringe" outlets are able to report on in. Also cf. with Ronan Farrow and Weinstein.