10

8 comments

[–] Dii_Casses 6 points (+6|-0) Edited

Respectable organizations have had to cut costs, which mostly translates into cutting down on the editors, fact checkers, researchers, and anyone else that might turn a writer's workweek into ash and smoke. This will degrade their organization until it is little more authoritative than the Huffington Post (or already has), but with the added overhead of the legacy newspaper infrastructure.

And the doesn't help that the new breed of activist-journalists actively rebel against those that try to maintain standards.

In a very real sense the New York Times died years ago and a tabloid now inhabits the vacant shell of a building.

[–] jobes [OP] 5 points (+5|-0)

Imagine considering the New York Times a legitimate source of journalism. These statements show a complete lack of any journalistic standards - knowingly publish false information, do not contact people for comment who they say were misrepresented, use opinion blogs as source material to write articles featured under their news section.

"Defendants admit that Ms. Astor, her editors, and The Times did not reach out to Mr. Mohammed, Mr. Jamal, or Mr. Awed for comment" despite their being required to by their own Editorial Standards and Guidelines on Integrity.

The NYT also admitted knowing that ballot-harvesting in Minnesota is illegal despite saying otherwise in its article. Additionally, the "Times's lawyers asserted that certain challenged statements in the Astor Article were plainly opinion and not actionable as a matter of law," yet the article did not appear in the opinion section. The NYT "admit that Ms. Astor is not an opinion writer for The Times and is a political reporter."

Defendants admit that researchers from Stanford University and the University of Washington published a blog post about the Video on September 29th as part of a joint project called the "Election Integrity Partnership[.]" ... Ms. Astor received an embargoed copy of the EIP Report before it was published ... after receiving a copy of the EIP Report — and before the publication of the September 29, 2020 article titled "Project Veritas Video was a 'Coordinated Disinformation Campaign,' Researchers Say" — Ms. Astor read and digested the EIP Report, contacted the authors of the EIP Report for comment, contacted other individuals for comment, submitted her draft article to her editors for review and approval, and finalized her story.

These admissions show that the NYT did not conduct an investigation, but instead deferred to the Election Integrity Partnership.

[–] jidlaph 1 points (+1|-0)

While AmericanThinker is undeniably a biased opinion site that might better go in /s/punditry, it seems inappropriate to label this post Questionable Source when it is linking to and citing court documents. That is far better sourcing than your average news article provides.

[–] unruly 0 points (+0|-0)

While AmericanThinker is undeniably a biased opinion site that might better go in /s/punditry, it seems inappropriate to label this post Questionable Source

You seem confused.

[–] jobes [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

It's certainly better sourced than the NYT article on Veritas that all of the 'fact checkers' referenced

[–] jobes [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

@unruly I can get why you flair it "questionable source" due to the political leaning of this source. What about this specific article is questionable, albeit the source being obviously right wing?

There is a lot of direct linking to material - videos and court documents - to back up almost every claim in that article minus a paragraph I can see was covered in a different article.

[–] unruly 1 points (+1|-0)
[–] jobes [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

I don't see many non-'extreme' sites covering this important court case that has potential large rammifications for the reckless behavior of MSM. I would consider say NBC a questionable source for NOT reporting on this.