4 ms·
> They also seem to exercise a double standard in this regard: Thanks, that's a good article, but doesn't seem to support your claim of a double standard: > S
by yesenadam 6y ago
> They also seem to exercise a double standard in this regard:
Thanks, that's a good article, but doesn't seem to support your claim of a double standard:
> Some will no doubt describe this double standard as an example of political bias, but it's probably better described as garden-variety sloppiness. It seems more likely that the Times does not have consistent standards here, and editors alternate between fostering over-reliance on anonymous sources and forbidding the practice.
i.e. not a "double standard", but no standard.
- throwawaysea 6y agoYes I’m aware the article offers that opinion towards the end, but that’s just their opinion. I linked the article primarily because it describes the two incidents (the facts without the opinionated judgment). To me it is still a double standard, a result of the NYT’s left leaning bias (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]