• sunzu
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Duranty example shows that editors at NYT will permit political/ideological bias to shape coverage even if it is to cover up a genocide.

    Now today’s example is hard to cover up, but NYT is not here on Palestinians team, never has been. Their coverage is there to make liberal American to accept the situation as is, nothing can be done, Israel is not doing a genocide but if they are, Gaza residents had it coming anyway.

    • @fukhuesonOP
      link
      -2
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      This is completely unfounded with regards to the reporting (not editorializing). You provide absolutely no evidence to support this biased opinion.

      This is verging on conspiratorial misinformation, and an attempt to baselessly discredit the posted article.

      • sunzu
        link
        fedilink
        42 months ago

        I provide a historical fact where NYT was instrumental of covering up a genocide in 1930s and I suggested that they are a bad faith actor here too, which is my opinion.

        conspiratorial misinformation

        You not liking another person’s opinion does not make their opinion a conspiracy btw

        I could be wrong, clearly another poster feels similar though.

        But the bottom line is that NYT already did this before, that is a fact. Time will tell what role they played here, it took 70 years for truth to come for the last “trick”

        • @fukhuesonOP
          link
          -52 months ago

          I’m not going to continue this with you. How absolutely absurd that you’re attempting to discredit this article due to something that happened nearly a century ago. Mbfc’s analysis of nyt now strikingly doesn’t include your aforementioned concern, perhaps your should update them with this insight and see if it moves their needle? :)

          • sunzu
            link
            fedilink
            22 months ago

            I am providing context on how NYT behaves. People can make their own decisions on NYTs credibility. Maybe it was just one off.