1
Rundown on the NYT scandal?
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Palestine
989 readers
9 users here now
A community for everything related to Palestine and the occupation currently underway by the occupying force known as Israel.
Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. Existence is resistance for Palestinians.
Please refer to Israel as Occupied Palestine, or occupied territories. The IDF is a fascist and ethnonationalist occupying force. Israelis are settlers. We understand however that the imperial narrative (which tries to legitimise Israel) is internalised in the imperial core and slip-ups are naturally expected.
We always take the sides of Palestine and Palestinians and are unapologetic about it. Israel is an occupying power whose "defence force"'s (note the contradiction) sole purpose for existing is to push Palestinians out so they can resettle their rightful land. If you have anything positive to say about Israel we do not care.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Nyt hired a person who'd never been a journalist to provide coverage of Palestine. They had already liked tweets and shit that called Palestinians barbaric scum. And the reporter hired her cousin to provide reports from Israel. She then produced the vast majority of the coverage calling the Oct 7th attack and giant rape campaign by Hamas. Recently the intercept double checked her work and discovered that the original nyt story has no sources backing up its claim, it was all invented wholesale. They did discover that the author had tried to find sources or evidence of the mass rapes and repeatedly been unable to prove it. They still went with the story. Nyt knew this because their own shitty daily news podcast (the daily) wanted to run the story too, but they couldn't get any sources on the claims of mass rapes on Oct 7 either. Nyt is still backing the claims made in the original piece and the author.
That pretty much it, terrible journalism and they know it but it pushes the narrative the policy makers want so it goes out regardless of merit or truth.
She also previously worked in intelligence in the Israeli military if I remember correctly.
Summary : they told news media what to post. Some news media didn't want to follow direct orders, so they "leaked it" or "sourced it from other media"
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
They want to believe it. That's it. Nothing more. We don't need to debunk or give it enormous amounts of time. Some people are just racist, it's not about being misinformed. There are people that are evil. I can't believe we don't consider that as an option more often. That includes the consumers.
you do need to debunk it tho to use it to help wake other people up
Here's a super fun exercise anyone can do with a bit of free time. If ever you read an article regurgitating some claim of an atrocity by any western enemy, follow the links to the claim. It won't be much of a rabbit hole. In general, for a 4 yol claim (so the October 7 tales may not fit exactly) you'll be linked to a 2 week old article, which will link a 6 month old one, which will link a 2 yo one, which send you to:
- Wikipedia, which will have already been re-written citing a 1 yo article
- A UN transcript, HRW article, or something equally worthless of someone repeating the claim
- The best approximation of an original source
That last one is extremely rare, but it's always magnificent. You find out stuff like how the 1-3 million interned Uyghurs claim comes from a pseudo-study that remotely talked to 8 people and nothing else.
Generally, the sources are always "government agency or news source repeated local news source/western study"
And the original source deep down is always literally propaganda if not made up.
Case in point, How ALL global agencies have the size of Yemen wrong because they use old references before the 2000s border agreement. https://youtu.be/WNR2namiS9o
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
reminds me of the whole citogenesis xkcd, except it's done intentionally in practice
"NYT stands by its reporting etc."
"Paper of record doesn't care you caught them lying to promote genocide, and neither do we"
Did they forget to pretend being rival sites?
lol
Remember everyone, when a liberal tells you that you're cherry picking, and just citing your own sources, and ignoring Wikipedia, and are biased... Just remember that they all do the exact same thing, even in their professional media.
The sad truth is that "liberals", or more specifically, the people who take the word of CNN and NYT as gospel, do not know or care about the truthiness of their soothsayers. How many decades have it been since the Korean and Vietnamese invasions by the US and orgs like CNN are still considered stenographers. My doubts about the verifiability of the laws of nature do not stem from the fallibility of human perception but the incentive and unaccountability for lying about shit like this.
It's called circular reporting...