Remember that time the NYT published Judith Miller’s stenography for the Bush Administration’s lies leading up to the war in Iraq? I’m sure they learned their lesson from that debacle, though.
I wonder what Media Bias Fact Check has to say about them?
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
What a goddamned joke.
The NYT was shitty long before that. They famously did not cover the Holocaust. Not the run up, and not even during the war.
When the camps were liberated, Americans at home had no idea who was in the camps.
The owner of the NYT was later asked about their failures in covering the Holocaust and the buildup, and said with a shrug “the NYT didn’t really cover the Holocaust”.
As a note the owner of the NYT was Jewish. But didn’t want to be associated with poor Jews.
I really wish Rooki would listen to the community about this silly bot. But they won’t, and their staunch defense in the face of criticism suggests an ulterior motive.
Tinfoil hat time: I think they got a Ground News sponsor for Lemmy (GN started an ad campaign just as this started) and are trying to look unbiased by having both GN and MBFC… in every single news post.
Yeah I had a similar feeling about ground news. I had assumed the bot was at least created by someone who works there, using whatever algorithm that site uses to rate sources. The fact that’s it’s mentioned in every post really rubs me the wrong way, on top of how shitty the bot is at doing what it’s supposed to. And yet, it’s still around. What do we have to do to finally get rid of it?
Am I late or oblivious? Is grte the bot? I couldn’t tell from the post history. Or is this way, way over my old-aged head?
The “great” part about how absolute shit NYT is, is how after the “great media consolidation” ~15 years ago when most of the major outlets were bought by billionaires the first thing they did was cut their investigation and research departments in favor of “copying” the NYT stories…
They don’t care about quality, or content, they’re the typical business school jackass type that thinks “ThE BrAnD mEAnS eVeRyThInG!” As in: you’ll eat whatever I serve and you’ll keep doing it because of the name I bought.
Same shit is happening with so called “AAA” game developers (Bethesda… Among others) except this isn’t fucking clothing. Gucci sells because people want the name. The Washington Post can go fuck themselves, no one but Bezos cares about the name.
Paywall free: https://archive.ph/I2G3o
NYT will go further and count it as 2 separate lies and clearly demonstrate how both sides are basically the same
FUCK NYT
TRUMP: Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
Fox News: cums
For people asking what this is about, I didn’t look at the NYT because of the paywall, but here’s an article that’s very similar in tone from NPR.
Although they do state
The dozen Harris statements lacking in context are far less in comparison to 162 misstatements, exaggerations and outright lies that NPR found from Trump’s hour-long news conference Aug. 8.
the following items are really nit-picky. It’s laid out as a list of misleading statements, but reading the details of each makes me think “ok, so basically true, then”.
I feel like some loud conservatives made NPR freak out and now they’re trying to sprinkle in stories like this.
Because the moment conservatives run things again, they’ll absolutely continue gutting public radio.
It’s because back in April some right-wing nutjob editor quit NPR claiming an atmosphere of bias. So he fled to right-wing outlets (where he conveniently ignores their right-wing bias) and now NPR decides they need to go back to balancing the scales of the BoTh SiDeS bullshit.
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245283076/npr-editor-uri-berliner-resigns-ceo-katherine-maher
Some of the “misleading” statements were Harris neglecting to enumerate the reasons why a stated policy goal might not succeed, which would be incredibly unusual to include in a speech of this nature.
I guess the point the author was trying to make was that saying you “will” do something in office is a promise, and if you don’t have the ability to guarantee that promise can be kept you shouldn’t say that thing at all? I love me some NPR but they’re really bending over backwards with some of these…
This was exactly the vibe I got reading their article about his military service.
