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.
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.
No memes or images. Exceptions may be made in the case of images of an ongoing news story becoming available.
User-edited titles are not allowed. Copy the headline directly and use it as the post title. Corrections in spelling or minor alterations may be acceptable.
News articles written over a month before posting must have the date of the article in the post title.
No paywalls. Use an archived link to post a paywalled article.
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.