7 ms·
> The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven Implying that every other major MSM organization doesn't do the same exact g
by dimgl 6y ago
> The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven
Implying that every other major MSM organization doesn't do the same exact garbage and aren't deserving of the same treatment.
Edit: the point is that rules should not favor one MSM corporation over the other. It should be neutral.
- tbenst 6y agoThis equivocation of news sources is how misinformation spreads. Look at how WSJ handled same story vs NYP. WSJ is indeed more reputable as is NYTimes
- andrewem 6y agoHere's the New York Times article about how the Wall Street Journal's handling of this compared with the New York Post's. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-biden-wall-street-journal-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-bid...
- dimgl 6y agoI'm not equivocating any news source. My stance on this is that there should be NO censorship, period.
- bigbubba 6y agoThe New York Times once allowed itself to be used as a mouthpiece for Stalin, publishing Walter Duranty's denials of famine in Ukraine. They didn't come clean on this until 1990: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/opinion/the-editorial-notebook-trenchcoats-then-and-now.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/opinion/the-editorial-not... More recently, they allowed themselves to be used as the uncritical mouthpiece of the American federal government when they were starting an illegal war predicated on lies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller If the NYTimes isn't pure, then surely none are. Genocide denial is particularly egregious, but at least they eventually came clean. I still read the NYTimes more than any other paper, but we must always remember to keep an open mind and to never be too trusting of what any newspaper says.
- teachrdan 6y agoThis seems to be a straw man argument. No in this thread is arguing that only "pure" outlets should be respected. The question is whether it was correct to lock the account of a media outlet that seems to be deliberately publishing news they know to be likely untruthful in an effort to sway the upcoming US presidential election.
- bigbubba 6y agoWould twitter have blocked NYTimes in response to Walter Duranty or Judith Miller's reporting? Denying genocide or uncritically spreading pro-war propaganda seem comparably egregious to anything the NYPost has done.
- rbanffy 6y agoIf the NYT's reporting were obviously a falsification, yes. Twitter would probably block them as well. At the time it wasn't obvious. In those days information traveled much more slowly, with many more intermediaries than today and was, therefore, much less reliable.
- ardy42 6y agoBeing reputable and being perfectly accurate all the time are different things. Listing a handful of cases where a reputable source was not accurate does not prove the source is not reputable. It's like trying to prove science is a sham by talking about phlogiston.
- bigbubba 6y agoNone can be counted on. I happen to think the NYTimes is better than most, which is why I read them more often than the rest. But you cannot count on them to not tell lies, even in the most important sort of matters, and anybody who reads any newspaper should always keep that uncertainty in mind.
- 6y ago
- lr4444lr 6y agoYou should check out the NYTimes' coverage of every rumor in Sarah Palin's family right after she was picked as the VP running mate in 2008.
- calvinmorrison 6y agoA few months ago there was non-stop coverage of the president purportedly saying very mean things about soldiers. This was from an anonymous source. Even Bolton who is no fan of the president said that it didn't happen. It got 24/7 playtime by the media. Now on the other day the NYPost has a narrative, with physical evidence, corrobrated by actual non-anonymous people alleging very bad things about a presidential candidate and what happens? Nothing. As usual 'the powers that be' have the media in the pocket. how long till this comment gets disappeared? I hope I don't get fired!
- ZeteticElench 6y ago" the NYPost has a narrative, with physical evidence, corrobrated by actual non-anonymous people alleging very bad things about a presidential candidate " Which is so obviously fake it isn't even funny. I'm getting very tired of the GOP's shameless tendency of creating controversies out of nothing. This is just another Benghazi or Hillary's Emails or Migrant Caravan.
- calvinmorrison 6y agois it fake or is it russian disinformation? I can't keep up with you types.
- ZeteticElench 6y agoAren't those synonyms?
- calvinmorrison 6y agouser: ZeteticElench created: 2 days ago karma: 3 Is there a world without paid shills? Who do you work for? ShareBlue?