3 ms·
You're moving the goalposts though - you said to cite any articles at all, which I did, and now you're complaining about their positioning in the paper. As I s
by itsdrewmiller 4y ago
You're moving the goalposts though - you said to cite any articles at all, which I did, and now you're complaining about their positioning in the paper. As I said in my original comment the coverage was slanted to the point that it was scandalous (look at the link!) but there was still a lot of content that wasn't "on message". The NYT fucked up but it wasn't pure propaganda.
- graeme 4y agoFair enough, I intentionally was a little hyperbolic to see what the strongest evidence against my position was. >but there was still a lot of content that wasn't "on message". I do not, however, think this is true in the case of the Iraq War. Once we get into quantity rather than mere existence, we have to consider positioning in the case of the print paper. It may as well not have existed given the positioning and delay. The editorial team buried their reporters' work when it didn't agree with their slant