Why does the NY Times get away with being wrong so often ?

[the other mike]

And never being held accountable ?
27:30 to 32:00

 

[skye]

They do it on purpose.

NY Times are Deep State scum.

 

[Rambunctious]

I guess because no one cares what the NY Times prints anymore......

 

[the other mike]

I guess because no one cares what the NY Times prints anymore......

It goes way beyond that. Hundreds of news media outlets use NYT and WaPo as
sources all the time. When they print a lie it gets echoed everywhere.

 

[9thIDdoc]

And never being held accountable ?
27:30 to 32:00

Money. Power. They think if you have that, you don't need truth.

 

[the other mike]

 

[bluzman61]

And never being held accountable ?
27:30 to 32:00

Like skye correctly mentioned, they're part of AND protected by the Deep State. It's as simple as that, Angelo.

 

[bluzman61]

And never being held accountable ?
27:30 to 32:00

Money. Power. They think if you have that, you don't need truth.

Yep.

 

[bluzman61]

I guess because no one cares what the NY Times prints anymore......

It goes way beyond that. Hundreds of news media outlets use NYT and WaPo as
sources all the time. When they print a lie it gets echoed everywhere.

Exactly.

 

[bluzman61]

I guess because no one cares what the NY Times prints anymore......

Good point.

 

[Death-Ninja]

Perhaps Mr Willian Barr can answer that, because the 1st amendment does not protect sedition/treason, and deliberately lying to the American people, so as to effect major political events to their own very narrow agenda at the expense of the United States national security, sure as shit is not protected free speech! Frankly, why marines have not stormed the NYT's, and the studios of NBC/MSNBC, and CNN/CBS and shot them all dead is a fucking mystery to me... Treason & sedition are not protected free speech, and the NYT's is not a legitimate news organization, its a democratic party political operation, as are the Wapo, and all of those so-called news channels.

 

[irosie91]

NYT is LIVING off its reputation as a good newspaper despite the fact that it want into rapid PROGRESSIVE
DECLINE----about 50 years ago. -------presently off the
very deep end

 

[bluzman61]

NYT is LIVING off its reputation as a good newspaper despite the fact that it want into rapid PROGRESSIVE
DECLINE----about 50 years ago. -------presently off the
very deep end

Spot on, Rosie, spot on.

 

[San Souci]

I guess because no one cares what the NY Times prints anymore......

Traitor Libs do.

 

[beautress]

And never being held accountable ?
27:30 to 32:00

I heard their readership was so low they were seriously considering throwing in the towel at NYT, when somehow their bills started getting paid by a very shadowy mega billionnaire...

 

[beautress]

NYT is LIVING off its reputation as a good newspaper despite the fact that it want into rapid PROGRESSIVE
DECLINE----about 50 years ago. -------presently off the
very deep end

I think the NYT checked out about the time William Safire died in September of 2009. He was their last bonafide journalist, imho.

 

[irosie91]

NYT is LIVING off its reputation as a good newspaper despite the fact that it want into rapid PROGRESSIVE
DECLINE----about 50 years ago. -------presently off the
very deep end

I think the NYT checked out about the time William Safire died in September of 2009. He was their last bonafide journalist, imho.

the decline began earlier----it was not SUDDEN. Its good fortune was that some of the old times did hang
on for awhile. Do not laugh----I noticed the first signs of editorial decline LONG ago----like in the 1980s----the grammar began to fall apart

 

[beautress]

NYT is LIVING off its reputation as a good newspaper despite the fact that it want into rapid PROGRESSIVE
DECLINE----about 50 years ago. -------presently off the
very deep end

I think the NYT checked out about the time William Safire died in September of 2009. He was their last bonafide journalist, imho.

the decline began earlier----it was not SUDDEN. Its good fortune was that some of the old times did hang
on for awhile. Do not laugh----I noticed the first signs of editorial decline LONG ago----like in the 1980s----the grammar began to fall apart

Just to clarify a little, I meant "checked out" in the informal meaning that it had been on life support long before it "checked out" meaning it was dead when their last real journalist was laid to rest. I loved no, celebrated! William Safire and his use of language in particular.

 

[protectionist]

Might as well mention the time 40 years ago, when the NY Times decided to go after the National Enquirer, and got their asses handed to them. Times, thinking it was too prestigious to be criticized, mocked the Enquirer, calling it a sleazy tabloid.

In the same column, it printed this >> "The oil shortage is a hoax", according to an unnamed government spokesman.

Times wasn't aware that a day earlier, the Enquirer printed this >> "The oil shortage is a hoax", according to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Democrat of Ohio, head of the Senate Energy committee.

 

[TheParser]

The New York Times is no longer a "newspaper."

Those people who read it are NOT seeking information.

They are seeking inspiration and solace.

And the Times, I hear, is doing an excellent job as the media leader of the Resistance.

I have read elsewhere (of course, it is below my dignity to ever read that rag) that its front page always contains at least half a dozen anti-Trump articles.

When Dems pick up their paper or check their digital edition, that is exactly what they are expecting.