3 ms·
I never disagreed that the story was exaggerated by the left-liberal media establishment. But your claims were that the NYT intentionally published disinformati
by jaccarmac 6y ago
I never disagreed that the story was exaggerated by the left-liberal media establishment. But your claims were that the NYT intentionally published disinformation.
The Intercept piece does not seem to prove this, and in fact none of the ten failures include NYT stories.
I find Taibbi odious to read, so only skimmed that article. I would appreciate direct links to New York Times articles with disinformation if that is still your claim.
Nevertheless, his piece seems to mention.
1. The lionization of Robert Mueller by the NYT. I don't disagree with this, but as far as I'm concerned this falls under exaggeration and not misinformation.
2. A breathless editorial. As an opinion piece, I believe that this is likewise exaggeration.
3. The NYT's coverage of "repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence. I already mentioned the multiple guilty pleas about this issue, which you did not refute.
4. A story about RT appearing over a C-SPAN broadcast, which appears not to be a hack. The NYT's story does not assert that the feed was hacked, and contains C-SPAN's explanation of likely technical difficulties.
5. An NYT story about Russian interference in social media. This one isn't even about the Russiagate investigation at all.
Once again, I do not deny that the media establishment was breathlessly eager for Mueller to confirm their most extreme suspicions. I don't deny that US media relies on evil Russian tropes to push stories. But you are evading my direct questions and requests for information, and gesturing at the tone of Russia-related coverage, instead of backing up your false assertion that the New York Times willfully propagandized the public with disinformation about Russiagate.
- trentnix 6y agoWhen all the errors go in one direction, it "smells a lot like smoke", as you put it. And nobody has even mentioned the, as the New York Times referred to him, "senior administration official" Anonymous who described themselves as a member of the "Resistance". Turns out he was, hardly, an actual senior administration official.
- jaccarmac 6y ago> When all the errors go in one direction, it "smells a lot like smoke", as you put it. This is true, and it's why I have consistently characterized the Russiagate investigation as overwrought with regard to direct election interference. But you're the one making unequivocal claims about the NYT publishing misinformation. At this point, it's clear that you're not interested in trying to defend the lie and would rather argue in circles about exactly how trustworthy the newspaper is. All you have to do is link to a single NYT piece on the investigation which contains clear misinformation. (That would still leave your comments on intent and propaganda unsubstantiated, but we would be much closer than we were five comments ago.)
- disgrunt 6y ago> Phone records and intercepted calls show that (Trump and his crew) … had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intell... > Even Strzok dumped on the Times’ story: “We are unaware of any Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” [1] [1]: https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/07/21/howie-carr-alt-left-media-still-cling-to-their-big-russia-lie/ https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/07/21/howie-carr-alt-left-...