|
projecthalaxy posted:Was the nyt always this bad? Like they've been around forever, were there op eds in the 40s about how actually maybe the Jews deserved it? The NYT was one of the main peddlers of the WMDs in Iraq myth lol They've always been bad but now they're getting extra attention because of twitter and the fact that trump started talking poo poo about them so liberals jumped to their defense
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
the NYT is an american institution and like all american institutions it loving sucks
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
this is an oft-quoted bit from their first feature on hitler in 1922quote:He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night. e: also there was the whole pushing the WMD lie. there has not been a single american war they didnt find themselves endorsing despite supposedly being liberals
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nytmedia/status/966382930888200192 nyt exec: phew. nailed it. relaly nipped that backlash in the bud
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/opinion/billy-graham-nonpartisan-evangelical.html only the best opinions from the grey lady.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Was the nyt always this bad? Like they've been around forever, were there op eds in the 40s about how actually maybe the Jews deserved it? I'm loving positive they wrote the same poo poo about the Bund in 1935 as they write about the Nazis next door today
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
quote:''You could have read the front page of The New York Times in 1939 and 1940,'' she wrote, ''without knowing that millions of Jews were being sent to Poland, imprisoned in ghettos, and dying of disease and starvation by the tens of thousands. You could have read the front page in 1941 without knowing that the Nazis were machine-gunning hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Soviet Union. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/news/150th-anniversary-1851-2001-turning-away-from-the-holocaust.html this is a pretty special article, the nytimes criticizing itself as being insufficiently zionist in the 1940s. like some sort of recursive failure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
I also strongly recommend Jim Risen recounting of all the pressures he would face to sit on stories that would deal with national security or question the official narrative. https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-times-reporter-in-the-shadow-of-the-war-on-terror/
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/opinion/billy-graham-nonpartisan-evangelical.html ah yes, the millionaire megachurch pastor who said Nixon was endowed with "supernatural wisdom" by God, who said AIDS was a "judgement of God" against homosexuals, and who enthusiastically supported the Vietnam war and urged the administration to commit war crimes that even Kissinger thought was over the top. truly a model of nonpartisanship
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:ah yes, the millionaire megachurch pastor who said Nixon was endowed with "supernatural wisdom" by God, who said AIDS was a "judgement of God" against homosexuals, and who enthusiastically supported the Vietnam war and urged the administration to commit war crimes that even Kissinger thought was over the top. truly a model of nonpartisanship nonpartisan of course means that carter, bill clinton, and obama were all ok with him because either they didnt care about any of that or didnt think making a fuss about it was worth the trouble
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
quote:In 1876, for example, the New York Times published an alleged true interview with the Chinese operator of a local opium den. The story has the reporter asking the "Chinaman" about the "handsome but squalidly dressed young white girl" he sees in the opium den. The "Chinaman" allegedly answers: "Oh, hard times in New York. Young girl hungry. Plenty come here. Chinaman always have something to eat, and he like young white girl, He! He!" Centuries of failure
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:nonpartisan of course means that carter, bill clinton, and obama were all ok with him because either they didnt care about any of that or didnt think making a fuss about it was worth the trouble Where does LBJ fit into this? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
an actual dog posted:the NYT is an american institution and like all american institutions it loving sucks
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
I guess my take would be that the NYT is now, and has been for a long while, establishment neoliberalism. Left-wing in the sense that it approves of good governance and decorum, where good governance is failed economic/foreign policy theory and politics, and decorum is "Try to be less Trump-like than that."
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
The times is fine and good, yall are just whining about their editorial page which has always been full of dumb takes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
Congrats on drawing in some more ad dollars to Bari Weiss tho
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Yeah I don't think lay people should try to question the findings of scientists. That's what peer review is for. What you are describing is mostly a mathematical problem and is something that should be able to be put into a hypothesis, tested and peer reviewed. If that's been done, he is indeed wrong. The science to show such a link doesn't really exist, because we don't have any sort of reliable/accurate model for how things like intelligence/behavior (which are hard to define in the first place) are linked with genes. But what we do know makes it exceedingly unlikely that such a link exists across population groups (at least to an extent that wouldn't be completely negligible). Unlike some other traits, everything we know shows that a trait like intelligence is contributed to by a huge variety of genetic factors (as opposed to having a small number that have a disproportionate impact), so you can logically conclude that populations that only differ slightly on a genetic level won't show any difference in that trait (as opposed to a trait that is only determined by a single or handful of genes, in which case the genetic difference between populations might actually have an impact - see: disease susceptibility). So I guess what I'm getting at is that it's not just a "we don't know yet" thing, but rather a "this is exceedingly unlikely" situation. It's sort of like if someone said "but can you disprove psychics exist??" in response to people denying their existence. Like, yeah, you can't, but there is nothing indicating they do, so it makes sense to assume they don't unless something randomly pops up. Though this situation is even worse in a way, because we actually do know some stuff pointing towards such a link either not existing or being negligible (plus all the nasty social issues associated with trying to draw a link between ethnicity and intelligence/behavior). (The main reason I harp on this is that it's the sort of thing that could actually make sense to a reasonably intelligent layperson; "ethnic differences have a biological source, and intelligence is influenced by biology" would normally lead one to the conclusion that ethnic groups might differ in that area if they weren't aware of some of the specific details.) edit: If anyone who knows more wants to comment or correct something, they're welcome to do so. I'm basically a mostly-layperson myself on the subject; I work with geneticists and have a stronger background than your average science-interested layperson as a result, but not at the level of an actual geneticist obviously. Ytlaya has issued a correction as of 04:42 on Feb 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Was the nyt always this bad? Like they've been around forever, were there op eds in the 40s about how actually maybe the Jews deserved it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/opinion/boys-violence-shootings-guns.htmlquote:To be clear, most men will never turn violent. Most men will turn out fine. ... We will probably never understand why any one young man decides to end the lives of others. But we can see at least one pattern and that pattern is glaringly obvious. It’s boys. somehow this is stupider than any of the crap that was said after columbine. GoluboiOgon has issued a correction as of 04:35 on Feb 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:The times is fine and good, yall are just whining about their editorial page which has always been full of dumb takes? of the three recent articles people are talking about on this page only one is from the opinion section. the other ones are one where the times "truth is in the middled" about false flag crisis actor conspiracy theories about the parkdale shooting and one where a longtime reporter told his story of how the times' editors sat on the bush warrantless wiretapping story for over a year (at the request of the same bush administration that was violating the constitution) and only published it when another paper was going to scoop them LinYutang posted:Congrats on drawing in some more ad dollars to Bari Weiss tho i browse the nyt with adblock on
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:The times is fine and good, yall are just whining about their editorial page which has always been full of dumb takes? its loving trash actually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:Congrats on drawing in some more ad dollars to Bari Weiss tho Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. When someone says "mungo gently caress" to Bari Weiss two Atlantic articles get written about it. People in power listen to these assholes, their actions are justified by these assholes, I don't understand how a few randos ignoring them makes them less powerful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 04:46
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/opinion/boys-violence-shootings-guns.html *after a string of mass shooters who are all incel chuds* ah well boys will be boys i guess
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 05:00
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:The times is fine and good, yall are just whining about their editorial page which has always been full of dumb takes? lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 07:38
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:*after a string of mass shooters who are all incel chuds* can't wait for the article blaming women for not having sex with them
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 08:05
|
|
|
Jose posted:can't wait for the article blaming women for not having sex with them the nytimes will become the first print medium to use the term "roastie" unironically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
more ink spent on the truly important issues of our time https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/966695078105370626
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Glad to see the NYT defending free speech by demanding that the proles shouldn't get to voice their opinions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:The times is fine and good, yall are just whining about their editorial page which has always been full of dumb takes? maybe the editorial page will publish this post then
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
not the times but bloomberg is close enough https://twitter.com/Trillburne/status/966519225476100097
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Glad to see the NYT defending free speech by demanding that the proles shouldn't get to voice their opinions. only pundits and columnists have earned the privilege to have opinions and render judgment
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:more ink spent on the truly important issues of our time the only comfort that matters is the comfort of cowardly eugenics-loving NYT columnists duh
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
lmao i didn’t read he column bc i didn’t wanna give him a click but it’s another time he’s just using text of a speech he gave holy poo poo he gets so much money for this bullshit https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/966695049948999681 edit: lol and nocera leaping to his defense, what a worm https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/966718853156884481 https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/966721034899677184 https://twitter.com/ryanlcooper/status/966723681824190464
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:a string of mass shooters who are all incel chuds Is that not the "problem with boys" he's referring to? Angry teenage boys getting drawn into incel chudhood is the exact masculine toxicity he's describing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
its cool that the school shooting at my wife's middle school was done by a woman
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:its cool that the school shooting at my wife's middle school was done by a woman did we ever hear more info on whether that girl or her parents were nazis
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:more ink spent on the truly important issues of our time That's actually an important issue though. Of course that guy isn't exactly capable of handling that issue, because the NYT editorial board is trash..
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
it's absolutely not an issue because nobody at the NYT except the actual nazi they hired has ever faced consequences for a social media frenzy they're just annoyed that the proles can reach up and touch them now
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
They really are the purest example of coastal elitists
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Mushy Rubio Edit: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2018 00:59
|
|