New York Times Caught In A Lie Again, They Can't Help Themselves...

[Ingomike]

It could be just a rough estimate by the journalist and something an editor didn't deem worth checking. No matter. This is picking fly specs out of the pepper. And boring.

If your post is true, then you are observing and commenting on snowflakes* and ignoring the Avalanche which is not so boring.

*snowflakes as in the weather related definition...

M

 

[Alpo]

You missed my point and are forgiven.

I don't really care. This is a nonsense subject. Get back when something important arises...like peace with Korea. Short of that this looks like a race for the classifieds.

 

[jamil]

Click thread tools in the thread header. Click “unsubscribe from this thread”. Follow the prompts. Easy peasy.

 

[Alpo]

But first, I would have to subscribe since unsubscribe is not an option.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What evidence do you have that I didn’t read your post? Can you answer the question? What is TWS?

See post #20. If you posted after that, it kinda defaults to "post not read."

 

[Ingomike]

You missed my point and are forgiven.

I don't really care. This is a nonsense subject. Get back when something important arises...like peace with Korea. Short of that this looks like a race for the classifieds.

Still can't see the Avalanche...

Is it really a "nonsense story" when the dominant corporate media aligns with a political party to become a propaganda outlet against the majority?

Naw, nothing to see here...

M

 

[BugI02]

How is my life affected by this error?

Yawn.....let's not fall below the Yahoo threshold on stupid stuff.

How was your life affected by Trump saying Obama tapped his wires when he meant intercepted his communications. A common euphemism not required to accurately reflect current technology to get it's idea across, but how was that played?

Again, when you define the ROE downward, don't get upset when the battle is taken to that level

 

[jamil]

See post #20. If you posted after that, it kinda defaults to "post not read."

No. I read the post. But I'll admit I filed the last part in the partisan "bull[GLOCK]" bin. Three hours later it didn't register WTF you were talking about.

I get the TWS, I've seen it. I've written about it--don't really call it TWS. I usually refer to the most ardent Trumpers. But how is that relevant to this discussion? None of this relates to that. It doesn't take away from the points made. You didn't do your "but Trump..." bit in a way that makes it anything other than "but trump..." TDS. I told you how to do it.


Don't worry Indiucky. We're just talking here. You're welcome to post some...uh...distractions though.

 

[Alpo]

How was your life affected by Trump saying Obama tapped his wires when he meant intercepted his communications. A common euphemism not required to accurately reflect current technology to get it's idea across, but how was that played?

Again, when you define the ROE downward, don't get upset when the battle is taken to that level

You confuse me with someone who said that. I've long been of the opinion that when the facts are brought forth by Mueller, there MIGHT be something to discuss. I already know that Trump cannot be relied on to get his facts right. Why would I quibble about more errors.

 

[Alpo]

Still can't see the Avalanche...

Is it really a "nonsense story" when the dominant corporate media aligns with a political party to become a propaganda outlet against the majority?

Naw, nothing to see here...

M

Dominant corporate media...you mean Fox, don't you?

If you don't get behind the NYTimes paywall, you don't read their stuff. I refuse to pay for it. Most Americans refuse to pay for it. Therefore "dominant" is probably not an appropriate term.

 

[Ingomike]

Dominant corporate media...you mean Fox, don't you?

If you don't get behind the NYTimes paywall, you don't read their stuff. I refuse to pay for it. Most Americans refuse to pay for it. Therefore "dominant" is probably not an appropriate term.

Apartantly the masses do not agree with you.

The Top 25 | Pew Research Center

Fox is one of the few compared to the huge number of corporate liberal media outlets and that does not even include Facebook, Google etc.

M

 

[Alpo]

By your own citation, Yahoo is number 1.

Unique visitors per day is around 5000? Share of monthly traffic around 1%.

You define dominant in a very loose manner.

In addition, since we are on the subject, I would expect the press, no matter who owned it, to take a somewhat adversarial role to the people in power. That is how the founders envisioned it. I think we can both agree that all news services have failed in large part to fulfill that role.

I still think your example isn't worth debating.

 

[jamil]

By your own citation, Yahoo is number 1.

Unique visitors per day is around 5000? Share of monthly traffic around 1%.

You define dominant in a very loose manner.

In addition, since we are on the subject, I would expect the press, no matter who owned it, to take a somewhat adversarial role to the people in power. That is how the founders envisioned it. I think we can both agree that all news services have failed in large part to fulfill that role.

I still think your example isn't worth debating.

Funny that they can only figure out who the adversaries are when democrats aren’t in power.

 

[Ingomike]

By your own citation, Yahoo is number 1.

Unique visitors per day is around 5000? Share of monthly traffic around 1%.

You define dominant in a very loose manner.

In addition, since we are on the subject, I would expect the press, no matter who owned it, to take a somewhat adversarial role to the people in power. That is how the founders envisioned it. I think we can both agree that all news services have failed in large part to fulfill that role.

I still think your example isn't worth debating.

I might suggest spending a little more time studying the information presented. Have a great night.

M

 

[Alpo]

Funny that they can only figure out who the adversaries are when democrats aren’t in power.

Ohhhh I think the right wing press held up its end during the Obama period.

 

[Alpo]

That's the internet. AFAIK, NYTimes doesn't have the TV muscle of Fox. Internet news viewership is a far cry from television, which is in the millions. Hannity alone gets over 3 million viewers per month and we know how "fair & balanced" along with ACCURATE Hannity is.

But, you already knew that and really didn't believe the NYTimes was the "dominant" news source of America.

 

[jamil]

Ohhhh I think the right wing press held up its end during the Obama period.

Interesting that you didn’t deny that the mainstream press is decidedly democrat. But at this point that would be silly to deny. They outright admit it now.

We don’t have a free press. We have a crony press. Institutional journalism has become so partisan it can’t make itself be honest. And that’s killing it. And not enough too soon. The institutional press has had centralized power over the news, and therefore over the facts. They get to frame the stories. They get to cherrypick what facts they spoon out. And that’s fine when they have integrity. But they’ve lost that. And the internet has created a mechanism by which news has become decentralized. Now, the news corporations, to the extent that they don’t fabricate news, get the news from social media. They’re the middlemen we no longer need. Independent journalism is rising.

If the West can stay free—and that’s in great danger now, thanks to the left—eventually centralized control of news will die. Institutional news didn’t tell us the facts behind Hillary’s collapse during the campaign, an independent journalist caught it on video and shared it.

Because of the internet, a lot of centralized institutions can be replaced. Education is next. Brick universities are becoming obsolete. I think we’ll start to see independent teachers teaching more online curriculum. And we’ll see accredited standardized testing replace traditional institutional accreditation. That is, if the West remains free. If the internet becomes restricted. Well. I guess democrats‘ dominance over the mainstream narratives will just continue to grow.

 

[jamil]

That's the internet. AFAIK, NYTimes doesn't have the TV muscle of Fox. Internet news viewership is a far cry from television, which is in the millions. Hannity alone gets over 3 million viewers per month and we know how "fair & balanced" along with ACCURATE Hannity is.

But, you already knew that and really didn't believe the NYTimes was the "dominant" news source of America.

I wouldn’t say NYT is dominant. I would say they’re part of the mainstream left biased institutional news that IS dominant.

Also, it’s not any more intellectually honest to call Hanity “News” than it would be to call Rachel Maddow News. These are political pundits, not reporters. They don’t pretend to be unbiased. Unfortunately the mainstream news reporters no longer hold the journalistic standard to report news neutrality. They’re openly leftists. Nust look at what fhey tweet. It’s no wonder they make **** up.

 

[KLB]

That's the internet. AFAIK, NYTimes doesn't have the TV muscle of Fox. Internet news viewership is a far cry from television, which is in the millions. Hannity alone gets over 3 million viewers per month and we know how "fair & balanced" along with ACCURATE Hannity is.

But, you already knew that and really didn't believe the NYTimes was the "dominant" news source of America.

How many of those sites even pretend to not be liberal biased?

How many actually are not politically biased?

 

[BugI02]

Also, Alpo

I'd be interested in your explanation of why the only news organizations restricting access to their content on the internet archive are left wing, NYT, WaPo, and NPR to name some. Why doesn't "The Paper of Record" want to have a record?
They're retconning and stealth editing their content to cover their more egregious sins of bias as their narrative has been forced to change (as more and more sins of that 'scandal free' fella' are brought to light)

I can't believe anyone would give them much credence at this point, but none so blind I guess. They feel like they still have influence (and can monetize) the #resistance and they'll move heaven and earth (and the truth) to try to maintain that. The Grey Lady is senile