3 ms·
Ironically, like media outlets often says about people online, it does not matter how good the rebuttal is if 5,000 people see it and millions read what it disp
by easterncalculus 4y ago
Ironically, like media outlets often says about people online, it does not matter how good the rebuttal is if 5,000 people see it and millions read what it disproves. The damage is already done.
- MomoXenosaga 4y agoThe history of Haiti can't be distilled in a single article. You'd need a 500 page book for the abridged version. But realistically very people would give enough of a shit to read it.
- easterncalculus 4y agoDefinitely, I completely agree. That goes for any nation really. The difference to me is that one article is making a pretty serious claim, and the other is casting some doubt on it - the burden of proof is still on NYT.
- hiram112 4y agoThis has increasingly been the M.O. of all the "activist" media outlets in the US for the past 5 years. Issue exaggerated if not outright fraudulent explosive headlines and articles - Russian Pee tapes, bounties on American troops, Capital police officers bludgeoned to death by rabid mobs, etc. - then months later, quietly issue a "correction" on page 10, long after the false narrative has been thoroughly disseminated into the public's version of reality. And if that wasn't shady enough, in the days of online content, these outlets often don't even bother with admitting they were wrong. They simply edit the original stories - silently and without public notice - and pretend it was never written in the first place. The NY Times was caught red-handed doing this with their 1619 content several times already.