4 ms·
Pick pretty much anything in the run up to the Iraq invasion. From what I remember, it was a nadir of US journalism. Generally speaking, any time there is milit
by toyg 3y ago
Pick pretty much anything in the run up to the Iraq invasion. From what I remember, it was a nadir of US journalism. Generally speaking, any time there is military US intervention somewhere, American publications toe the line in embarrassing ways.
- dekhn 3y agoDo you have links to actual articles about current events? If you read the Times, you'll notice that for the first week the mostly print the establishment view (america war good) but then after that, they start publishing the more critical articles.
- bugglebeetle 3y agoLater countering the propaganda they uncritically (some might argue, intentionally) spread in the first place does not argue in their favor.
- dekhn 3y agoI'm still waiting to see some links to head-to-head articles posted contemporaneously so I can compare. Experts who read the NY Times know how to read through the intentional narrative/propaganda (which is mainly meant to capture the hearts and minds of the young and naive) to understand the underlying reality.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago> Experts who read the NY Times know how to read through the intentional narrative/propaganda The parent already cited the Iraq War coverage, in which they incited the country to violence with known lies, leading to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian deaths. If this isn’t enough to swear you off their coverage, I honestly don’t know what else would. But to your point, the NY Times has millions of readers and this is a very small subsection of their audience. Which do you think is a more important function of journalism: lying to the masses in a way that is understood to be propaganda by your so-called “experts” or telling the majority of people the truth in the first place?