4 ms·
The NYT article was not “ahistorical”, something that the author points out was the facts were mostly correct. The problem here is the narrative that is built
by darth_avocado 4y ago
The NYT article was not “ahistorical”, something that the author points out was the facts were mostly correct.
The problem here is the narrative that is built based on the facts is not accurate and conclusions weren’t scientifically drawn.
- tablespoon 4y ago> The problem here is the narrative that is built based on the facts is not accurate and conclusions weren’t scientifically drawn. Yeah, I think you always have to read things like the NYT with an eye towards their demonstrated institutional biases. I think they can be trusted to get the facts right (even if that fact is "ABC made claim XYZ," when XYZ turns out to have been wrong), and I don't really see a better alternative for getting facts about current events. That said, I don't think journalists at the NYT are the right people to be writing revisionist histories of events that are very much not current. If they want to publish stuff like that, it would better if the hired some actual historians to do these projects (instead of just trying to use them as QC).