> Because it was written in the New York Times and every other major media outlet. Not because it was on social media. That's how it always worked. Major news

> Because it was written in the New York Times and every other major media outlet. Not because it was on social media. That's how it always worked. Major news outlets are there to pick and choose which news are important to report on, and how to report on them. They set the framing and then everyone copies and pastes the same thing. It's great if they are ideological, because it changes public opinion on a topic, or ignores topics which shouldn't be talked about. It's good for profit too, as they're the first to get credit, views, clicks, etc. Reporting the truth has no short term profit or benefit associated with it. However, over a longer period of time people start to notice that even major news outlets are just as full of bullshit as anyone else. It erodes credibility and trust. What is suspicious is that they didn't reply when pressed to explain what the source was. Wonder, do they ever reply to those? In other words is it because they are embarrassed about this particular story that it was manipulated or that they never reply to those requests anyway. The author is a writer for the Atlantic and New Yorker. If I wrote an email to NYT or AP to ask for an explanation, pretty sure I won't get a response. Do they feel like answering someone like David Zweig is should be a higher priority?