|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
77.111.246.126
As I see it, the Times' main agenda these days is to pump out deep-state propaganda. So I can just see them rifling though the various anti-Putin sites on the Web, both inside and outside Russia. Bonus when they hit a site whose work they can steal, attribute to themselves, and then win a Pulitzer Prize! Yeay!
Follow Ups:
Now you DESERVE to be Mod of the Cable Ward. It will keep you plenty busy, and away from deep-state conspiracy wackos.
. . . are themselves conspiracy theories, written by folks I would call wackos - despite their Ivy League pedigrees! ;-)
You want in on a threesome.
KP
However, what has Trump done that actually favors Putin? He's bombed Assad's bases in Syria, increased sanctions against Russia, stationed NATO troops right on Russia's doorstep. . . so. . . you tell me: what has Trump done that's been good for Russia and Putin?
BTW, I notice that a few of these posts which answer my OP in this thread are trying to change topic. The topic is: is the NY Times trustworthy? I say no.
"What has Trump done that actually favors Putin?"
1. Gave him a pass on 2016 campaign interference
2. Gave him a pass on Ukraine
3. Gave him a pass on murders of former Soviet citizens
4. Tried to give him a pass on sanctions until Michael Flynn got caught
5. Looked and sounded as deferential as hell to a scheming murderous dictator who is no friend of the U.S. or the West in general.
"What has Trump done that actually favors Putin?"1. Gave him a pass on 2016 campaign interference
Often asserted, never proven. Yeah right, the Russians had more influence on the election, with $150,000 of mostly non-political FaceBook ads (most of which ran AFTER the election - LOL!), than the Hillary campaign, which had close to a billion dollars at its disposal, did!2. Gave him a pass on Ukraine
What pass on Ukraine? We're the ones who worked behind the scenes to topple a UN-certified democratically elected government there. If the Ukrainians didn't want Yanukovitch to remain in power, there was another election coming up, and they could have voted him our of office. But we couldn't wait for an actual election - we were too eager to go ahead with our coup and install "our guy" in power. Check out the damning YouTube recording (below) between Asst Sec of State (under Hillary), Victoria "Cookies" Nuland (a truly evil creature), and US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt (below). I also think it's interesting that Putin was able to "take over" Crimea without firing a shot. Our violence in Kiev didn't go quite so well.3. Gave him a pass on murders of former Soviet citizens
Check the stats: the murders of former Soviet citizens and journalists have actually GONE DOWN under Putin, compared to what they were under "our guy" Yeltsin.4. Tried to give him a pass on sanctions until Michael Flynn got caught
And yet, we're beginning to see now that Michael Flynn was the victim of an out-of-control security state, which was being used by one political party in this country to illegally spy on another. To me, this is MUCH worse than Watergate, where it was only "the plumbers" who were trying to spy on the other party's campaign. In Flynn's case, it's an actual apparatus of the government which was used for this purpose. This should send chills up your spine.5. Looked and sounded as deferential as hell to a scheming murderous dictator who is no friend of the U.S. or the West in general.
I think you've really drunk the deep-state MSNBC/CNN Kool Aide on this one: I'll leave it to your own expertise to determine how deferential somebody looks and sounds, but the "scheming murderous dictator" has far less blood on his hands, and is doing far less damage and murder throughout the world than we indispensable and exceptional Americans are - such damage and murder are made possible only by the looting of our national treasury for this purpose!
Edits: 05/14/20
OMG! How many gallons of the Kool-Aid do you have stashed at home?
and if you believe everything you read and then spread it around, you aren't doing anyone any favors.
The Times is a FINE, respectable paper, but not the only one I read, nor my only source of news.
Don't tumble into that Black Hole of Deep State BS or take sides, use all sides to get where you need to be.
Absorb all the info you can, make your own decisions.
Notice how many of the "unenlightened" disparage more and more MSM news sources
every year searching out news sources that fit their agenda? They further narrow their
myopic view of things, their tolerance of others and their input into society.
That can't be healthy.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
"The Times is a FINE, respectable paper"
Hahahahahaha! That was good.
You're kidding, right?
aa
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
And the link in my OP shows one reason why.
And it's telling that you call the disparagers of MSM "unenlightened". A bit smug, are we?
And finally, I note that your own "shoot from the hip" response is that anyone who questions MSM must have a narrow, myopic view of things. You don't know what news sources I check. It very well could be a much wider variety than that of the sources you check.
You essentially present no facts, just your opinion.
In fact, according to Ranker.com, the NYT is the most respected newspaper in the US. The top 10 are:
1 New York Times (a 112-time Pulitzer Prize winner)
2 The Washington Post
3 The Wall Street Journal
4 The Boston Globe
5 Los Angeles Times
6 Chicago Tribune
7 San Francisco Chronicle
8 The Philadelphia Inquirer
9 USA Today
10 The Dallas Morning News
This is just one ranking - can you provide your own that shows that the NYT "is NOT a fine, respectable paper, and hasn't been for decades"?
There was practically nothing BUT facts in the link.
And your appeal to the authority of somebody's newspaper rankings is touching. So you tell me: what are these rankings based on? Circulation? Newspaper circulations are less and less impressive these days. (OMG! I did check ranker.com, and the site seems to be an online entertainment site, which ranks things such as music, sports, food based on how visitors to the site vote! That's a GREAT source you've got there for determining the intrinsic value of the New York Times - LOL!)
My view of the NYT (and all established media for that matter) is that, after awhile, a certain inertia takes over with its readership, and the readers just become comfortable with these sources. But despite this inertia, the Times (like most newspapers) has generally been declining in its readership - hence, Trumps phrase, "the failing New York Times". This decline is part the general turn away from print media which has occurred over the last couple of decades.
While "W" was President, I very much supported The New Yorker and considered myself almost a "partisan", if you will, of that publication. But somewhere in the middle of the Obama administration, their stories began to strike me as increasingly bizarre, and, later on, I began to realize that their point of view was not in favor of the Democratic Party I knew when I was growing up, but rather in favor of the corporate "Clintonite" wing of the party, with its readiness to support any new war or military action - not to mention all the articles on Russiagate, which were, for me, poorly written and dubiously sourced. I saw the same thing with the New York Times, and, these days I generally do NOT trust either of these publications, even though, I'm freely willing to admit, many of their stories are still reliable and responsible. It's just that too many of their stories have deteriorated into slipshod propaganda spinning IMHO.
It's obvious you have no authority for your simple minded prejudice - you offer nothing but BS - I read your linked article of complaint by Russian journalists - how does that mean it is "NOT a fine, respectable paper, and hasn't been for decades"? And did you offer any rankings other than your own - oh, that's right, you offered no rankings at all! Whether you trust the NYT or not, does not certify that the NYT is "NOT a fine, respectable paper, and hasn't been for decades". What's truly failing here is you and this President - your partisan bias is astounding. You won't affirm the facts - the NYT is one of the most respected newspapers in the world.
Nothing could be further from the truth: I didn't vote for Trump last time, and I'm not voting for him this time.
So if you did read the linked article. . . you will see that the New York Times plagiarized the stories from the various Russian sites mentioned. Do you think that this practice is consistent with being a fine, respectable newspaper?
And, I swear, you've got rankings on the brain - no matter how dubious the methodology by which these rankings are derived (and from an entertainment site, no less - LOL!).
When you say that the NYT is one of the "most respected newspapers in the world" (is it a fact just because you assert it?), I want to know who it is that's doing the respecting. Did you know that half the people in this country are of below average intelligence? If those are the ones (or most of the ones) who respect the NY Times, then I rest my case! ;-)
You, a supporter of the President? Well, you did cite to him for your "failing" accusation, did you not? And you did use his "deep state" characterization of its contents, did you not? If you sound like one of his supporters ...
I read your article - your conclusions are all wrong! One article, a couple of Russian journalists are accusing the NYT of "stealing major scoops" - that's not the same as "plagiarism", is it? So, you've obviously added your own bias to this story.
Then you accused it of being "NOT a fine, respectable paper, and hasn't been for decades" without any historical proof to back up your "decades" claim or any proof of not being a "fine, respectable paper" other than your single article, an inquiry which resulted in my citation to but one rating of its respectability and a challenge to you to cite one rating showing your accusation - which you have failed to do, because you can't. The NYT, to which I do not subscribe, is a fine, respectable newspaper that you just don't like, more likely than not because it doesn't fit your particular point of view. Now, when Bob Dylan got sued for recording "Dignity", did that make him NOT respectable despite all that he had previously (and since then) written and recorded? Of course not. And you called it a "practice" when there is no evidence that in the NYT's history it has happened over and over again - another example of your bias.
112 Pulitzers - how many Pulitzers has your chosen news source received? The fact is a simple google search reveals numerous citations to the NYT's respectability. You just didn't want to accept that, so you've chosen to denigrate a renown newspaper. When you make comments like these, you are the one that is failing and show your own lack of intelligence.
Only by your own curious "logic" does the use of a couple of quotes from Trump make one a supporter of Trump.
You say that "stealing major scoops" does not constitute plagiarism. It sure sounds like plagiarism ("the practice of stealing someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own" - New Oxford American Dictionary) to me! I mean, you don't get to re-define the meanings of words just because it's temporarily convenient for you to make your point.
You want historical proof of the Times' mendacity? Aside from the subject of this thread (which is actual plagiarism, regardless of how you would like to re-define the word), how about all the cheerleading for the Iraq invasion? How about the reporting of Times "reporter" Judith Miller - who was nothing more than a stenographer for Pentagon talking points - and I mean word for word! You know there are plenty more examples, but you won't take off your own biased blinders to see them!
Yes, I do not like or trust the New York Times for the reasons I've shown above and for other reasons I've listed in this thread. You love the Times because it fits your particular point of view. (You see - I just plagiarized that phrase from your post - LOL!)
112 Pulitzers? You're easily impressed. If the rest of these Pulitzers were awarded based on the same standards as the ones just given to the NYT for plagiarism, you'll have to forgive me if I'm LESS than impressed.
Well at least I have some logic.
I notice that this story has not been carried by pretty much anyone else, not even Fox News - curious. But that still leads you to your conclusion that the NYT is not a fine, respectable newspaper. So I don't think this is plagiarism, and the Russians didn't accuse them of that either.
'Everyone' cheered for the Iraq invasion; many were misled by Judith Miller and VP Cheney. At least in May of 2004 the Times issued "an extraordinary mea culpa over its coverage of Iraq, admitting it had been misled about the presence of weapons of mass destruction by sources including the controversial Iraqi leader Ahmad Chalabi." So there's the Iraq war - a bad mistake. And I'm sure there are others - BUT that does not warrant your labeling it "NOT a fine, respectable newspaper". Show me a newspaper that hasn't had a retraction.
Ah, yes, and there's the rub - you still haven't provided a news source more respectable than the NYT. So where do you get your news? And how many Pulitzers has it or they won for fine reporting? I'm less than impressed by your logic and conclusions.
Well at least I have some logic.
I notice that this story has not been carried by pretty much anyone else, not even Fox News - curious. But that still leads you to your conclusion that the NYT is not a fine, respectable newspaper. So I don't think this is plagiarism, and the Russians didn't accuse them of that either.
'Everyone' cheered for the Iraq invasion; many were misled by Judith Miller and VP Cheney. At least in May of 2004 the Times issued "an extraordinary mea culpa over its coverage of Iraq, admitting it had been misled about the presence of weapons of mass destruction by sources including the controversial Iraqi leader Ahmad Chalabi." So there's the Iraq war - a bad mistake. And I'm sure there are others - BUT that does not warrant your labeling it "NOT a fine, respectable newspaper". Show me a newspaper that hasn't had a retraction.
Ah, yes, and there's the rub - you still haven't provided a news source more respectable than the NYT. So where do you get your news? And how many Pulitzers has it or they won for fine reporting? I'm less than impressed by your logic and conclusions.
And I'm less than impressed by yours! In fact, you say you have logic, but you don't have any at all.
All you can do is throw out these wild charges - like I'm a supporter of Trump (which I'm not), or that my initial linked article does not show that the Times engaged in plagiarism (when it's the very definition of plagiarism!). Speaking of plagiarism. . . that reminds of yet another NY Times writer/plagiarizer, Jayson Blair, whose plagiarized stories appeared in the Times no less than seven times. Don't believe me? Look it up! Yeah, they offered an apology here too. But wouldn't it have been better if they had had the safeguards in place to prevent such malfeasance in the first place?
"[M]any were misled by [New York Times writer] Judith Miller" - yes they were! I wonder about the level of support for the Iraq War war which Miller's articles made possible. Without her malpractice, would it have even been possible to defeat the Bush/Cheney regime for a second term? Of course, we'll never know. You say "everyone" cheered for the Iraq invasion. Maybe it seemed that way to you, but there was a not insignificant number of congressional representatives (133 in fact) who voted against his insane invasion, including Bernie Sanders, as well as the congresswoman from the adjoining district to mine, Barbara Lee. I also could see right through the group think at the time (maybe one reason was because I didn't read the NY Times!). The Times acted as if such rationality was an impediment to the "unity" we needed at the time. Disgusting. So they issued a retraction - big deal!
So where do I get my news? First of all, like most browsers, the Opera browser I use presents a list of stories from the mainstream media when I first log on (including the NY Times!). I check a few of these stories each day to see how our corporate media companies are framing each new news story. For reliable reporting I can actually trust though, I check the following:
- The Hill's series of daily shows on YouTube, called "Rising", with Crystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti - they mainly stick to domestic political news, so they're somewhat limited however.
- Consortium News, the site which reported on this latest episode of plagiarism by the NY Times.
- The Grayzone/Pushback, especially the episodes with Aaron Mate. This is also on YouTube.
- Max Blumenthal, who appears on various forums on YouTube, including The Jimmy Dore Show.
- Matt Taibbi, who appears on many of the Rolling Stone segments on YouTube.
- Secular Talk, with Kyle Kulinsky, also on YouTube.
As I say, you're easily amused by Pulitzer Prizes (media elites giving awards to other media elites and singing "Kumbaya! Aren't we wonderful!"). You would do much better to think for yourself, rather than relying on prizes and popular vote entertainment sites, when it comes to your news consumption.
As usual, among some, feelings trump facts and reasoned argument.He makes assumptions on how you think and then condescendingly lectures you i. e. "If you rely on one news source you aren't doing yourself any favors and if you believe everything you read and then spread it around, you aren't doing anyone any favors." "Don't tumble into that Black Hole of Deep State BS or take sides, use all sides to get where you need to be. Absorb all the info you can, make your own decisions."
Yet, he provides no argument to the information presented in the article in your original post, and blindly defends the NYT as "a FINE, respectable paper".
Then he states "Notice how many of the "unenlightened" disparage more and more MSM news sources every year searching out news sources that fit their agenda? They further narrow their myopic view of things, their tolerance of others and their input into society."
Who is the " many" that he talks about? In the context of his reply to your post, it looks to me that he was implying that the "many" would include you.
Talk about a "myopic view of things", a lack of "tolerance of others".
I'd go further than a "bit smug". I'd say condescending smug intolerance. Not something you would expect from the truly "enlightened".
Edits: 05/13/20 05/14/20
Ah yes, critical thinking - a quality less and less encountered as society rambles ever onward! ;-)
"Their "fuckups" are inexcusable at best and deliberate at worst. Their "fuckups" are journalistic malpractice."
Is that your idea of critical thinking? Where else does he say anything about the NYT providing examples to back up his assertions? Instead he attacks posters. At least you provided an example of a NYT mistake. Where are Krav's examples? Where is his "reasoned argument"? Is this post of Krav's your idea of critical thinking?
"Re: "the Pentagon Papers" That was then, this is NOW."
What media does Krav consider to reliable mistake-free sources that don't commit "journalistic malpractice"? He never says.
Several times you've posted to criticize the NYT. I'm wondering why it is that you single out them but never mention media that not only create and promote falsehoods but do so as a deliberate policy - Fox News and Murdoch newspapers. In your criticism of media you never mention any "conservative" leaning media. Why is that? As I've mentioned before, the readership and viewership and number of conservative media outlets certainly qualifies them to be considered "mainstream" media, yet you focus on the NYT's mistakes and ignore blatant bs published/broadcast on "conservative" media.
. . . Fox News and the Murdoch media are, be my guest - in fact, I'll probably join you in throwing some brickbats!
The trouble with the NYT and the WAPO (and the New Yorker, the LA Times, etc.) in my opinion is that they aren't merely mistake prone (which would be forgivable), but they push a certain point of view which is consistent with the propaganda our security state pumps out. In the 2013 Defense Authorization Act, there was money in the bill set aside to generate propaganda for consumption by American citizens. This usually takes the form of anti-Russian and/or anti-Chinese stories (many of them with no basis in fact) which seek to rile up citizens into accepting the obscene and ever increasing amounts of money set aside for the military industrial complex that Eisenhower was warning us about 60 years ago. (Our military budget is larger than the next ten countries combined, including Russia and China.) The Democratic Party used to be the party of peace, but, ever since Clinton, there's hardly been a difference between the two parties when it comes to foreign policy - the neo-conservatives and the neo-liberals may differ with each other in rhetoric these days, but in foreign policy, there's hardly anything to choose between them.
Finally, I must point out that you've conflated Krav's reply to me and musetap (which is what I replied to when I mentioned "critical thinking") and his reply to you (a few posts down in this thread). I stand by my description of his reply to me as showing critical thinking, where all the sentences are parsed and analyzed for what they actually contain - yes, that's critical thinking.
When Chris said "some" critical thinking, he was probably not referring to my "Their "fuckups" are inexcusable at best and deliberate at worst. Their "fuckups" are journalistic malpractice." statement.
You stated "WAPO and NYT publish a paper with a lotta articles every single day. Do you really expect zero fuckups?" and I stated my opinion that "Their "fuckups" are inexcusable at best and deliberate at worst. Their "fuckups" are journalistic malpractice." Apparently, I hold them to a different standard than you do. In regards to their "fuckups", I expect them to edit all of their articles to a standard higher than I what I would expect from a high school newspaper. After all, it is the New York Times, "The Gray Lady", that we are talking about, not a high school newspaper. YMMV
"Is this post of Krav's your idea of critical thinking?
"Re: "the Pentagon Papers" That was then, this is NOW." "
It should be obvious to anyone that the NYT of "the Pentagon Papers" era (1971) is not the NYT of today (2020), ergo "That was then, this is NOW.". That is so obvious that it did not even require much thinking, let alone critical thinking.
"What media does Krav consider to reliable mistake-free sources that don't commit "journalistic malpractice"? He never says."
That's a red herring. I was talking about the NYT and their "fuckups". I'm just commenting on NYT "fuckups" and stating that I consider their "fuckups" to be journalistic malpractice. Again, YMMV. I am not commenting on their non-fuckup reporting, only their "fuckups". LOL
You must have spent more time analyzing that than I did posting it.
I am honored!
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Yes, you are! You are special and entitled! So entitled that I am honoring you with an award.
It's just like the one given to Hillary Clinton after the 2016 election when the Democratic millennials petitioned the Electoral College to award her with a participation trophy. :-)
Oh, never mind, gotta go clean the cat box...
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Glad to see that I'm not the only one honoring you. :-)
you don't want to spit your kool-aid all over yourself.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
. . . no, you did not read the link! ;-)
I read the link this far:
"The Pulitzer Prize Board is comprised of a who's who of media aristocrats"
Another blog hack with an axe to grind. I don't trust any writer or source that uses "comprised of," which is NEVER correct.
Maybe you think the White House is a reliable news source.
Uh-huh. Maybe I think the White House is NOT a reliable news source too.
However, I DO trust someone who uses the phrase "is comprised of" over someone who uses "Maybe you think". You claim that "is comprised of" is NEVER correct. How strange! Do you even know the meaning of "is comprised of"? After all, this thread is comprised of posts by Audio Asylum members. I suppose that's not correct?
QED.
The whole always comprises the parts, not the other way around.
"Composed of" is correct. This thread is composed of posts.
. . . the usage "is comprised of" is part of standard English.This thread is comprised of posts, i.e., this thread is made up of posts. "Make up" is a definition of "comprise", according to the New Oxford American Dictionary.
Edits: 05/15/20
I distrust commenters that use "Maybe you think" to imply something about another person. LOL
Okay--"You probably think . . ."
a
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
I distrust commenters that use "You probably think . . ." even more than I distrust commenters that use "Maybe you think" to imply something about another person. LOL
nt
any distraction to the deep shit we're in to, I suppose.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Re: "the Pentagon Papers"
That was then, this is NOW.
BTW, did you check out the link in my OP?
As for the Pentagon Papers, yes, that's a feather in their cap. It's also about 50 years ago, and it's not something I can imagine them EVER doing today.
Meanwhile, here's another example of what I mean about hysterical mainstream corporate news reporting:
WAPO and NYT publish a paper with a lotta articles every single day. Do you really expect zero fuckups? To attribute such fuckups to some kind of "deep state" conspiracy is IMO a much worse fuckup.While of course I agree that ratcheting up tensions between nuclear powers is something to be avoided when possible, I put nothing past Putin.
I don't just automatically believe everything I read/hear in ANY news media. But to base judgment on the overall veracity and journalistic integrity/ability of daily media like NYT/WAPO which are respected around the world exclusively on their mistakes is ridiculous.
I did read your link. I like Greenwald and Taibbi and bookmarked The Intercept. Thanks for the link.
Edits: 05/13/20 05/13/20
Their "fuckups" are inexcusable at best and deliberate at worst. Their "fuckups" are journalistic malpractice.
nt
aa
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Let's just hope there will be some worthwhile "depth" left in government to salvage our democracy and rule of law once the floating pond scum of this current administration is finally cleaned out.
wtf are you blabbering about?
Laughing...
That's hardly a response. I think if you bothered to check the link you'd see.
It's a hoax.
There are elites of various political persuasions. They don't want gub'mint jobs. And there are schleps who don't want crappy gub'mint jobs either, but they gotta make a living.
"Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. "
― W.C. Fields
You gotta give all your personal info to dine out in New Orleans. You can't hide.
But gathering and analyzing intelligence is a legitimate function of the federal government. Albeit George Tenet and Colin Powell abused that function at the behest of Bush 43 which subverted that legitimacy; so that from 2003 to kingdom come we don't believe anything said by CIA, NSA, DIA, etc. That's the state of intelligence. Is it the intelligence state?
"Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. "
― W.C. Fields
And these people were not elected by the voters. Tenet and Powell were hardly the only two who abused their functions - at least Powell has shown a bit remorse about it. But you don't think Peter Strzok abused his function too? (I'm including the FBI as an intelligence organization too.)
But I disagree that it's a big problem. The rank-and-file workers in these agencies must hold security clearances that require them to be squeaky clean. Most politicians aren't fit to clean their boots. Most politicians would be unable intellectually and morally to qualify for work in national security, and would be unable to hold even the lowest level security clearance.
For instance, one of the questions asked is 'have you ever declared bankruptcy?' Our VSG would not qualify for a security clearance based on this question alone. If, as Kushner did, you make a false statement on an application for a security clearance, that's a felony.
Contrary to your opinion (in the Socratic sense of that word) workers in the security agencies are dedicated, underpaid, and overworked. Our VSG isn't fit to lick the boots of Peter Strzok.
IME the deep state includes the MIC, Wall Street, and those who practice politics as a vocation; while the poor schmucks working in the trenches of our security agencies haven't got a chance of influencing those Mammon.
"Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. "
― W.C. Fields
. . . the apolitical standards within our deep state that you do. But that's fine - we can agree to disagree on this. But if deviation from these squeaky clean standards happens at the Peter Strzok / Lisa Page level, then I've got to believe that the deviation is more widespread than we realize, although none of us actually knows for sure.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: