4 ms·

>In April 2021, the Post published a false front page story asserting that copies of a book by vice president Kamala Harris were being distributed to migrant ch

>In April 2021, the Post published a false front page story asserting that copies of a book by vice president Kamala Harris were being distributed to migrant children at an intake facility in Long Beach, California.[124] Fox News then published a story about the matter, followed by numerous Republican politicians and pundits commenting on it, in some cases speculating that taxpayers were funding the supposed book handouts for Harris's personal profit.[124][125] Responding to questions from Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy, White House press secretary Jen Psaki expressed no knowledge of the matter; the Post then published a new story headlined "Psaki has no answers when asked about Harris' book being given to child migrants."[126] Four days after the original publication, the Post replaced the story with a new version clarifying that just one Harris book had been donated by a community member, but maintained it was an "open-arms gesture by the Biden administration," though there was no evidence of the administration's involvement.[126] Laura Italiano, the author of the story, resigned that day, asserting she had been "ordered" to write it.[57][126] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post Hopefully the NY Post's commitment to factual, responsible reporting has improved since April

throwawaysea 5y ago
I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. Are you just picking a random anecdotal example to discredit the linked article using whataboutism? And if so do you do this consistently with other sources? For example the New York Times very publicly pushed their 1619 Project, which had numerous factual problems and was written by an incredibly biased author. After it had widely circulated across our entire society, they quietly revised its content without issuing formal corrections with the same visibility their incorrect content was given (https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memo...). The net impact of that falsehood seems much much larger than the example you've quoted. Should we dismiss the NYT outright? Or can we just agree that all sources provide value through their different perspectives, and we can reason about their content without needing to either attack or blindly accept the source?

throwawaysea 5y ago

I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. Are you just picking a random anecdotal example to discredit the linked article using whataboutism? And if so do you do this consistently with other sources? For example the New York Times very publicly pushed their 1619 Project, which had numerous factual problems and was written by an incredibly biased author. After it had widely circulated across our entire society, they quietly revised its content without issuing formal corrections with the same visibility their incorrect content was given (https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memo...). The net impact of that falsehood seems much much larger than the example you've quoted. Should we dismiss the NYT outright? Or can we just agree that all sources provide value through their different perspectives, and we can reason about their content without needing to either attack or blindly accept the source?