Can household disenfectants kill you if you put them inside your body? On the one hand, absolutely yes, on the other, a republican said something different so we have to represent it as a matter of controversy.
They’ve since changed it, but still, fuck the fucking New York Times.
ETA: I mean, seriously, you know what was abusive? The U.S. government’s policy towards HIV/AIDS during the time Larry Kramer started his activism.
Fuck. The. Fucking. New. York. Times.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
In which New York Times reporter @Tmgneff reports on an apparent use of force by the US Army against “insurgent” US citizens in Washington, DC, and his takeaway is: “In this case it was successful.” pic.twitter.com/HozJQvcWaj
— Jonathan Myerson Katz (@KatzOnEarth) June 2, 2020
The story’s second paragraph obscures that all the known protest-related deaths were protesters, then immediately adds an unnecessary note that police have been injured.
— Jonathan Myerson Katz (@KatzOnEarth) June 2, 2020
It is difficult to overstate what a terrible publication this is.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
In which New York Times reporter @Tmgneff reports on an apparent use of force by the US Army against “insurgent” US citizens in Washington, DC, and his takeaway is: “In this case it was successful.” pic.twitter.com/HozJQvcWaj
— Jonathan Myerson Katz (@KatzOnEarth) June 2, 2020
To be fair, I don't read this quote that way at all. The journalist doesn't call US citizens insurgents, but points out that the method is designed for that, and is being used on citizens.
It’s possible you’re correct that they intended the article to be read that way. I still don’t think it’s a great look, since you’re indirectly comparing protesters to insurgents. If it’s the army themselves making the comparison, that is a newsworthy event and should be reported upon, but perhaps that should be made more explicit in the article.
Staffers at The New York Times are in open revolt Wednesday after the paper’s opinion section ran a column from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) calling upon President Donald Trump to “send in the troops” in response to nationwide protests against police brutality.
In a column titled “Tom Cotton: Send in the Troops,” the notoriously hawkish, pro-Trump senator called upon the president to mobilize the military to shut down protests across most major U.S. cities, despite the objections of both local officials and Trump’s own defense secretary.
In response, dozens of Times staffers began tweeting the same message, alongside an image of the headline: “Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger.”
Among those tweeting in solidarity were a diverse swath of editorial and production staffers, including restaurant critics, art and graphics producers, travel, style and culture reporters, tech writers, and Times opinion writers like Roxane Gay.
“Surreal and horrifying to wake up on the morning of June 4 – the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown – to this headline,” wrote Times China correspondent Amy Qin.
This is, to be clear, a new low, even by the subterranean standards of the NY Times opinion page.
I don’t really have anything else to add right now, except to express solidarity with victims of police violence.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
“Near the end of the day, James Bennet, the editor in charge of the opinion section, said in a meeting with staff members that he had not read the essay before it was published”
There are undoubtedly thousands of high school newspapers out there with higher journalistic standards than the New York Times editorial board. Maybe millions.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
It’s telling that @JBennet has run pieces by Tom Cotton advocating for military intervention in US cities and making the case for buying Greenland, but rejected these pieces from Cotton’s senate colleague. pic.twitter.com/5LdlYmdgKr
From New York Times town hall: op-ed team pitched the piece TO Tom Cotton. Not the other way around.
— quarantine toddler task force (@PatrickCoffee) June 5, 2020
How is it that Bennet still has a job if, under his watch, they're inviting opinion pieces that advocate using the military to curtail free speech, that they don't read or fact-check before publication, that cause their staff to revolt and large losses of subscribers, from writers who gleefully laugh at both of those results?
Seems like, you know, not the most competent way to run things.
I know most of the time when the Professor said “Good news, everyone!”, it really wasn’t good news at all. But I just felt like using it literally anyhow.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
“Uhh...we’re investigating how a full page ad saying ‘Islam is going to detonate a nuclear device in Nashville’ got into our paper.” pic.twitter.com/cLvh7D2UHI
Does this mean we can impliment the national ad campaign to spur the investigation into whether or not Rafael "Ted" Cruz or his father was or had knowledge of who the Zodiac killer is was or could be without repercussion, because apparently no one proof reads even full page advertisements.
Does this mean we can impliment the national ad campaign to spur the investigation into whether or not Rafael "Ted" Cruz or his father was or had knowledge of who the Zodiac killer is was or could be without repercussion, because apparently no one proof reads even full page advertisements.
I was eleven years old. And when I was strong enough, I dedicated my life to the study of fencing. So the next time we meet, I will not fail. I will go up to the six-fingered man and say, "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." pic.twitter.com/4t4GF4WwqU
I'm I missing something or has the Russian bounty story disappeared from the NYT homepage already? Not even a follow up story about the reactions and the denials?
The point is, of course, not that the Hillary email story deserved no coverage at all.
But the president ignoring and offering more benefits to Russia while they're paying people to kill US soldiers seems like a bigger story than email server management.
(I can also grant that coronavirus and other issues are big stories too... so maybe neither scandal deserves to cover the full front page... but A16? Nothing on the front page?)
Re: Why the Mainstream Media Really Sucks
Linear Mode
