What’s the clear propagandal purpose of “Father Slays New York Girl, 14, in TikTok ‘Honor Killing”? How has this impacted the content quality of their articles; that is, non-opinion news and opinions from the editorial board?
I looked back through your history and while it’s fairly liberal, which admittedly I thought acting as a white knight for NYTimes was a weird hill to die on, I realized the majority of your recent posts are from the NYTimes. It explains how you continue to act naive in the face of the obvious shift in the NYTimes’ promotion of Trump and fascism. I’ve read their articles for nearly 24 years and to me it’s clear as day they have been co-opted into this government’s fascist stance and are no longer the bastion of free speech and free thought they used to be.
This is really for everyone else to see: You have some bias or particular affiliation with the NYTimes and shouldn’t be taken seriously in your defense of this shell of corporation it once was.
We die all the time, so why not make it wild? Do it because it’s what you believe and there are no consequences.
You can take my word, whatever that means to you, that I have no affilation with NYT. While I might be biased, it’d be much more conducive if you tried persuasion through presenting and arguing article content—say from 2024—instead of trying some kind of psychoanalysis. I could say similar things about how middle-aged men these days always say things are never like the old days. (I’m not saying that the state of our politics are one of these things)
You act like it’s institutional bias, when it’s clearly propaganda.
What’s the clear propagandal purpose of “Father Slays New York Girl, 14, in TikTok ‘Honor Killing”? How has this impacted the content quality of their articles; that is, non-opinion news and opinions from the editorial board?
I looked back through your history and while it’s fairly liberal, which admittedly I thought acting as a white knight for NYTimes was a weird hill to die on, I realized the majority of your recent posts are from the NYTimes. It explains how you continue to act naive in the face of the obvious shift in the NYTimes’ promotion of Trump and fascism. I’ve read their articles for nearly 24 years and to me it’s clear as day they have been co-opted into this government’s fascist stance and are no longer the bastion of free speech and free thought they used to be.
This is really for everyone else to see: You have some bias or particular affiliation with the NYTimes and shouldn’t be taken seriously in your defense of this shell of corporation it once was.
We die all the time, so why not make it wild? Do it because it’s what you believe and there are no consequences.
You can take my word, whatever that means to you, that I have no affilation with NYT. While I might be biased, it’d be much more conducive if you tried persuasion through presenting and arguing article content—say from 2024—instead of trying some kind of psychoanalysis. I could say similar things about how middle-aged men these days always say things are never like the old days. (I’m not saying that the state of our politics are one of these things)