cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/26082031
The house style of the New York Times is severely outdated. Depending on the topic, the newspaper’s purportedly impartial tone instead reads as smug, self-amused, and deeply lazy. The results are disastrous when applied to a recent article which sincerely considers the idea that Rachel Griffin-Accurso, the popular children’s entertainer known as Ms. Rachel, might […]
Archived version without paywall: https://archive.is/yE3mF
The New York Times is a trash news source. I wish more realized this.
People seem to have either forgot or just not know the NYT has always had a neocon, jingoist, America BEST superiority complex when it comes to anything approaching ‘foreign policy’.
Does… everyone remember when they spent a whole lot of time amplifying the Bush admin’s bogus claims and outright lies justifying the GWOT, Iraq invasion 2 electric boogaloo?
Hyped up the ‘threat’ from Iran, to functionally make Obama and the Dems seem weak on foreign policy?
And that’s just in my lifetime…
Any whoosie, I’m sure that’s all just a coincidence and is in no way related to the CIA’s vast, documented history of involvement in and manipulation of US domestic media publications.
My grandfather used to half-jokingly call them the CIA’s press wing.
Snowden and Assange aren’t half joking about it.
The story is decent enough but holy shit the comments on that link are cancer
The weird part is that they’re not; NYT does a lot of good journalism, sometimes even on Palestine, but then they go around and pull shit like this.
Were ypu around for the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Maybe the elections in 2024? The NYT has been a dedicated propaganda source attempting to direct the conversation more than it tries to inform for decades now.
This was the case long before Gulf wars.
I don’t recommend looking at their 1930s issues
I’ve read the NYT article, and I can’t see anywhere where the author ‘sincerely considers the idea that Rachel Griffin-Accurso, the popular children’s entertainer known as Ms. Rachel, might be financially compensated by Hamas.’ Instead they report that ‘the advocacy group StopAntisemitism’ ‘sent a letter urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether Accurso is receiving funding to further Hamas’s agenda.’
The article as a whole seems pretty positive towards Miss Rachel, and uses her comments to point out how bad things are in Gaza, and insinuates that StopAntisemitism are the problematic ones.
the advocacy group StopAntisemitism’ 'sent a letter
That’s my problem with the article. This letter is meaningless. They might as well report “crazy people send crazy message and are promptly ignored”. Why give them a voice?
Someone needs to kick that interviewers face in. Being a lobbyist and asking loaded question is one thing, but being a journalist for a newspaper that understands itself to be a pillar of democracy and asking such an obvious bullshit question needs to be met with a harsh reaction.
