4 ms·
As far as this particular story goes, a population that read this Quillette article would have a better recall of verifiable, agreed upon facts than a paired po
by scarmig 4y ago
As far as this particular story goes, a population that read this Quillette article would have a better recall of verifiable, agreed upon facts than a paired population exposed just to the NYT article talking about mass graves being unearthed.
Disbelieving the NYT doesn't mean taking everything Quillette says at face value; it only means noting that the NYT has a history of fabrication and bias, and that anything sensationalistic reported in it should not be given the presumption of truth.
- muglug 4y agoEvery newspaper that’s been around for over 150 years will have a history of fabrication and bias. That, on its own, means pretty much nothing. Quillette and the New York Times are very different. Most of the New York Times’ energy is spent on regular gumshoe reporting. Very little energy is given over to opinion (including media criticism). You’re obviously going to get a different reaction from reading a straight-up news article vs reading an opinion piece about media coverage. I disagree with your contention that the Quillette reader comes away better-informed. I found the thing confusing. He seems to suggest that maybe the graves aren’t actually graves, but also says that thousands of children were known to have died there. Surely the deaths of children is the real story, not the terminology used by some newspapers.