List of Controversies Involving the New York Times

[Viktor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involving_The_New_York_Times

"Controversies include allegations of biased and inaccurate reporting of the Russian Revolution, reporting on Wen Ho Lee's alleged theft of government documents, the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal, articles by Judith Miller, the MoveOn.org ad controversy, the 2006 Duke lacrosse team scandal, the John McCain lobbyist controversy in 2008, and various accusations of: plagiarism, a leftist bias, Anti-Indian sentiment, Anti-British sentiment, and Antisemitism."

 

[depotoo]

If someone were counting, there would be a couple thousand more easily.

 

[MisterBeale]

If someone were counting, there would be a couple thousand more easily.

Precisely. It is the ones that Wiki is NOT mentioning that are the ones that are truly important.

Meh.

Wikipedia is not very reliabl to tell the complete truth.

The most important thing to know about the NYT? They don't print anything that the establishment, the CFR and the Deep State don't want the government to have you think about.

The NYT is the official mouth piece of STATE propaganda. I mean, this is linked on PAGE one of my "stay informed," thread. Conservative CFR sources are the same though, you won't hear anything on FOX news that the CIA, FBI, and the CFR don't want you to know about. No one that follows Fox News know shit about Black Rock Capital's involvement with the bailout happening before Covid ever struck. . . it's how we know the Economic World Forum's paradigm is a bunch of garbage. Fox News knows, but they aren't telling you.

New York Times Admits it Sent Story to Government for Approval

New York Times Admits it Sent Story to Government for Approval

The American paper of record just provided a major example of the symbiotic relationship between U.S. corporate media and the government, Ben Norton writes for Grayzone.By Ben Norton Grayzone The New York Times has publicly acknowledged that it sent a story to the U.S. government for approval from

consortiumnews.com

 

[depotoo]

If someone were counting, there would be a couple thousand more easily.

Precisely. It is the ones that Wiki is NOT mentioning that are the ones that are truly important.

Meh.

Wikipedia is not very reliabl to tell the complete truth.

The most important thing to know about the NYT? They don't print anything that the establishment, the CFR and the Deep State don't want the government to have you think about.

The NYT is the official mouth piece of STATE propaganda. I mean, this is linked on PAGE one of my "stay informed," thread. Conservative CFR sources are the same though, you won't hear anything on FOX news that the CIA, FBI, and the CFR don't want you to know about. No one that follows Fox News know shit about Black Rock Capital's involvement with the bailout happening before Covid ever struck. . . it's how we know the Economic World Forum's paradigm is a bunch of garbage. Fox News knows, but they aren't telling you.

New York Times Admits it Sent Story to Government for Approval

New York Times Admits it Sent Story to Government for Approval

The American paper of record just provided a major example of the symbiotic relationship between U.S. corporate media and the government, Ben Norton writes for Grayzone.By Ben Norton Grayzone The New York Times has publicly acknowledged that it sent a story to the U.S. government for approval from

consortiumnews.com

Wiki is biased when it comes to anything political. It is edited by the lefts team on standby. Try it sometime. See how fast they alter anything they don’t like. Facts be damned.

 

[TheParser]

No one respects the New York Times anymore.

Yes, it has a huge digital subscription base, but those readers do not read it for the news.

They read it for comfort.

Each morning, I have heard, it has at least six anti-Trump articles on the print edition's front page.

Its readers expect these stories in order to give them the strength to face the day.

Next week, the liberals' dream may come true: Trump's humiliating defeat.

I then expect the Times's digital subscription base to shrink.

 

[MisterBeale]

No one respects the New York Times anymore.

Yes, it has a huge digital subscription base, but those readers do not read it for the news.

They read it for comfort.

Each morning, I have heard, it has at least six anti-Trump articles on the print edition's front page.

Its readers expect these stories in order to give them the strength to face the day.

Next week, the liberals' dream may come true: Trump's humiliating defeat.

I then expect the Times's digital subscription base to shrink.

What would be the difference between a humiliating defeat for Trump, and just a defeat for Trump?

. . . was Hillary's defeat "humiliating?"

. . . or was it just a defeat?

Honestly, I don't trust the vote counts either way, if Biden wins, or if Trump wins. I just don't trust the integrity of the system.


I am not convinced that the FAKE NEWS is telling the truth about how many folks actually care.

Why is this election more compelling than the last one? Why are the independents and moderates more inspired to vote this time than they were last time?

I am just not convinced they are telling the truth. The system, and the folks they give us to vote for, have no mandate to rule. NONE.

They are all corrupt, and do not support the polices we actually want.

 

[TheParser]

No one respects the New York Times anymore.

Yes, it has a huge digital subscription base, but those readers do not read it for the news.

They read it for comfort.

Each morning, I have heard, it has at least six anti-Trump articles on the print edition's front page.

Its readers expect these stories in order to give them the strength to face the day.

Next week, the liberals' dream may come true: Trump's humiliating defeat.

I then expect the Times's digital subscription base to shrink.

What would be the difference between a humiliating defeat for Trump, and just a defeat for Trump?

. . . was Hillary's defeat "humiliating?"

. . . or was it just a defeat?

Honestly, I don't trust the vote counts either way, if Biden wins, or if Trump wins. I just don't trust the integrity of the system.


I am not convinced that the FAKE NEWS is telling the truth about how many folks actually care.

Why is this election more compelling than the last one? Why are the independents and moderates more inspired to vote this time than they were last time?

I am just not convinced they are telling the truth. The system, and the folks they give us to vote for, have no mandate to rule. NONE.

They are all corrupt, and do not support the polices we actually want.

View attachment 407089

I agree that our elections are far from squeaky-clean.

As you know, our country has a history of doubtful victories.

In fact, fraudulent elections are as American as apple pie. (One 19th century President was referred to as "His Fraudulency.")

To be frank, I think that our elections will become dirtier in the coming decades, for many people coming from other countries to live here come from countries where election fraud is a given and almost admired.

I know of one high school where the students (from certain countries to our south) stuffed the ballot box to elect a homecoming queen. They thought that such fraud was hilarious. When they grow up, is it any wonder why some will think "winning" by any means is just hunky dory?

 

[Viktor]

If someone were counting, there would be a couple thousand more easily.

I know a few. That story about Russian bounties on US soldiers started with the NY Slimes and 5 months of investigation by the Defense Dept has found nothing to prove it. There was a story in the NY Slimes about chaos in the White House by an "anonymous" source. The Slimes promised to reveal the name but they never did. The Slimes printed what it claimed were excerpts from Trump's tax return, but no evidence was presented for any of it. There is a federal law which prohibits disclosure of financial info without the taxpayer's consent. The Slimes never told us where they got the data.

 

[Viktor]

If someone were counting, there would be a couple thousand more easily.

I love their editorial rhat claims the GOP is dying. ROTFL! The GOP has 197 reps in the House, 53 Senators, 26 governors, and 52 % of the state legislators. Do you think the Dumbocrats actually believe that crap?

 

[Viktor]

No one respects the New York Times anymore.

Yes, it has a huge digital subscription base, but those readers do not read it for the news.

They read it for comfort.

Each morning, I have heard, it has at least six anti-Trump articles on the print edition's front page.

Its readers expect these stories in order to give them the strength to face the day.

Next week, the liberals' dream may come true: Trump's humiliating defeat.

I then expect the Times's digital subscription base to shrink.

What would be the difference between a humiliating defeat for Trump, and just a defeat for Trump?

. . . was Hillary's defeat "humiliating?"

. . . or was it just a defeat?

Honestly, I don't trust the vote counts either way, if Biden wins, or if Trump wins. I just don't trust the integrity of the system.


I am not convinced that the FAKE NEWS is telling the truth about how many folks actually care.

Why is this election more compelling than the last one? Why are the independents and moderates more inspired to vote this time than they were last time?

I am just not convinced they are telling the truth. The system, and the folks they give us to vote for, have no mandate to rule. NONE.

They are all corrupt, and do not support the polices we actually want.

View attachment 407089

I agree that our elections are far from squeaky-clean.

As you know, our country has a history of doubtful victories.

In fact, fraudulent elections are as American as apple pie. (One 19th century President was referred to as "His Fraudulency.")

To be frank, I think that our elections will become dirtier in the coming decades, for many people coming from other countries to live here come from countries where election fraud is a given and almost admired.

I know of one high school where the students (from certain countries to our south) stuffed the ballot box to elect a homecoming queen. They thought that such fraud was hilarious. When they grow up, is it any wonder why some will think "winning" by any means is just hunky dory?

I grew up in Chicago, where there was a Democratic Party machine and all the elections were dirty. The Dumbocrats had dead people, winos from Skid Row, illegal aliens voting and lots of them voted more than once.

 

[TheParser]

No one respects the New York Times anymore.

Yes, it has a huge digital subscription base, but those readers do not read it for the news.

They read it for comfort.

Each morning, I have heard, it has at least six anti-Trump articles on the print edition's front page.

Its readers expect these stories in order to give them the strength to face the day.

Next week, the liberals' dream may come true: Trump's humiliating defeat.

I then expect the Times's digital subscription base to shrink.

What would be the difference between a humiliating defeat for Trump, and just a defeat for Trump?

. . . was Hillary's defeat "humiliating?"

. . . or was it just a defeat?

Honestly, I don't trust the vote counts either way, if Biden wins, or if Trump wins. I just don't trust the integrity of the system.


I am not convinced that the FAKE NEWS is telling the truth about how many folks actually care.

Why is this election more compelling than the last one? Why are the independents and moderates more inspired to vote this time than they were last time?

I am just not convinced they are telling the truth. The system, and the folks they give us to vote for, have no mandate to rule. NONE.

They are all corrupt, and do not support the polices we actually want.

View attachment 407089

I agree that our elections are far from squeaky-clean.

As you know, our country has a history of doubtful victories.

In fact, fraudulent elections are as American as apple pie. (One 19th century President was referred to as "His Fraudulency.")

To be frank, I think that our elections will become dirtier in the coming decades, for many people coming from other countries to live here come from countries where election fraud is a given and almost admired.

I know of one high school where the students (from certain countries to our south) stuffed the ballot box to elect a homecoming queen. They thought that such fraud was hilarious. When they grow up, is it any wonder why some will think "winning" by any means is just hunky dory?

I grew up in Chicago, where there was a Democratic Party machine and all the elections were dirty. The Dumbocrats had dead people, winos from Skid Row, illegal aliens voting and lots of them voted more than once.

Thanks! And some Americans ridicule other nations' elections! What a nerve!

(Some people believe that the "interesting" electoral practices in Illinois helped Senator Kennedy get elected in 1960 -- the first time I was eligible to vote. Dang! Can you imagine what may happen in Chicago's voting booths one week from today?)