4 ms·

Amusing to see the NY Times, which hysterically screamed about misinformation and its dangers for several years during a certain pandemic and a certain presiden

Amusing to see the NY Times, which hysterically screamed about misinformation and its dangers for several years during a certain pandemic and a certain presidency, now doing a neat 180-degree turn on the lab leak theory from its previous and blatantly political stance. The same paper, by the way, that also lovingly supported the WMD claims against Iraq during the Bush administration. I personally believe the lab leak theory extremely plausible, but the general and persistent mendacity and hypocrisy of this particular newspaper are staggeringly massive enough to form their own gravitational field.. The narrative grifters posing as reporters and editors at the NY Times robustly deserve every ounce of scorn that can be dumped upon them.

JKCalhoun 2y ago
I'm still on the fence about the origins of COVID, but I generally disregard an opinion when a comment attacks a publication rather than facts, uses phrases like "hysterically screamed".
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  One can agree with the plausibility of a publication's argument in one articule (as I actually do in this case) and still make a general point about the nature and tendencies of the wider publication/media organization behind it. This is an obvious thing, and nitpicking about it is ridiculous. The NY Times has indeed performed many internally, centrally guided ideological contortions to suit its own cynical motives (like many other media sources do) and absolutely deserves being called out on its bullshittery.
fsh 2y ago
This is not a NYT article, it is an opinion piece written by a third-party author. The NYT editors often don't apply very strict journalistic standards to opinion pieces. This is an (in my opinion somewhat misguided) attempt to be "neutral".
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  Really? So it's not an article written for the New York Times despite being an article posted on the website of the New York Times? Are opinion pieces, which indeed do get vetted too, somehow categorized as things that randomly form into existence within their own rules of causation, as if they were like sinkholes or lightning strikes? Also, to clarify better, I guess, I don't disagree with the plausibility of the arguments in this particular piece. My main point was about the NY Times in general and its past actions.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

I'm still on the fence about the origins of COVID, but I generally disregard an opinion when a comment attacks a publication rather than facts, uses phrases like "hysterically screamed".

southernplaces7 2y ago
One can agree with the plausibility of a publication's argument in one articule (as I actually do in this case) and still make a general point about the nature and tendencies of the wider publication/media organization behind it. This is an obvious thing, and nitpicking about it is ridiculous. The NY Times has indeed performed many internally, centrally guided ideological contortions to suit its own cynical motives (like many other media sources do) and absolutely deserves being called out on its bullshittery.

fsh 2y ago

This is not a NYT article, it is an opinion piece written by a third-party author. The NYT editors often don't apply very strict journalistic standards to opinion pieces. This is an (in my opinion somewhat misguided) attempt to be "neutral".

southernplaces7 2y ago
Really? So it's not an article written for the New York Times despite being an article posted on the website of the New York Times? Are opinion pieces, which indeed do get vetted too, somehow categorized as things that randomly form into existence within their own rules of causation, as if they were like sinkholes or lightning strikes? Also, to clarify better, I guess, I don't disagree with the plausibility of the arguments in this particular piece. My main point was about the NY Times in general and its past actions.