The New York Times is now actively, publicly, and directly campaigning and lobbying for policy. They are to the point that they aren’t a biased news source, because they aren’t a news source at all.
Again…Like Fox News?
This is a tweet from the NYT: “Contact @LisaMurkowski, (202) 224-6665, particularly if you live in Alaska, to say she should oppose the Senate tax bill because it would drive up the cost of health insurance by repealing Obamacare’s individual mandate. #thetaxbillhurts”
So the act of openly getting involved in politics means they no longer produce any news? Does the same apply to all industries after they get involved in politics?
1 Like
In sports, announcers won’t pick winners for the games they announce because they’d lose objectivity. No you can’t lobby and be a legit news source.
1 Like
You genuinely believe news hasn’t been lobbying for years? And/or your objection is to them doing it publicly?
edit: for reference after a 3 second google
Among them are:
News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal and Fox News;
Walt Disney, which owns ABC News and ESPN;
NBCUniversal, which is owned by Comcast and includes NBC News;
Allbritton, which owns several TV stations and Politico;
Gannett Broadcasting, a division of Gannett, which owns USA Today:
Post-Newsweek Stations, the broadcast division of The Washington Post Co.;
Belo Cos., which owns 20 TV stations;
Cox Media Group, which owns The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Austin American-Statesman and other newspapers and TV stations;
Dispatch Broadcast Group, which owns Ohio and Indiana TV stations;
Barrington Broadcasting Group, which owns several TV stations around the country;
The E.W. Scripps Co., which owns TV stations and newspapers, including The Commercial Appeal in Memphis, Tenn.;
Hearst Television Inc., which owns 29 stations;
Raycom Media, which owns TV stations;
Schurz Communications, which owns newspapers and TV stations nationwide.
When did I say that?
So directly and publicly seemed pretty new to me, yes. They generally at least have some semi plausible layers of separation.
I just assumed the implication was they weren’t previously. My bad if that’s not the case.
Unfortunately it just means you haven’t been paying attention. Not meant as a slam at all, most people don’t either.
Totally plausible, I don’t watch the news at all anymore.
I watch local shit - when I see that big foreheaded motherfucker Lester Holt’s ugly mug invade my tv screen I leave the room. I fuckin’ hate the commercials NBC NN run promoting him as if he’s some saintly figure to be idolized. He’s a fucking crooked mouthed stooge with a some sort of savior complex - it’s eerie
To your point. Crooked unethical journalism is as old as journalism.
3 Likes
I would add that it’s also completely expected and by no means unreasonable. At its core, the media is a business, out to make a profit. They have the same motivations as any sector to want changes to happen in their favor. The almighty dollar.
Capitalims and Communism both spawn unethical propaganda and fake news?
It’s a small world, after all.
So which college that she attended, there are two, had her listed as a minority? The quote you posted does not say that Harvard hired her because they thought she was an Indian. The people who hired her, including someone who worked with Reagan, said that it was not the reason for hiring her.
Harvard listed her as a minority woman tenured professor. Which she isn’t. Of course anyone who hired anyone would never admit that race played a part in the decision.
Read the National Review article he posted.
How do you walk, so twisted up?!
Seriously, how did Harvard know about her fake family history, unless she told them? Do you think they check purported ancestry?
Look, I graduated from Harvard several years before she got there, but I distinctly recall the pressure they were under to become “diverse” even when I was there. There was at least one lawsuit that I recall about a professor (who was a terrible professor, but also a minority) was denied tenure.
So she came in claiming to be Native American, and they suspended their disbelief and hired this lily-white “woman of color.”
If I look hard enough I bet I can find the alumni magazine with her picture on it, trumpeting their score of this “woman of color.” It was a big deal.
It was also completely false to anyone with eyes.
And everyone looked the other way to make the legal heat go away.
I think you all miss the point. It is being said that she lied to get into college when the fact is she didn’t. She didn’t lie to get a job at Harvard as she was recruited. I’m not defending her; I’m just expecting posters to stick to facts. If you had read anything I posted about her you will see that I have not stated anything that is not true and I have not passed off speculation and/or wishful thinking as truth. So who exactly is twisted up?
And did she lie on the applications to the colleges she attended? Did she lie to get a job at Harvard? These are things that have been stated and no one has backed them up with any proof.
Read the articles. She misrepresented herself multiple times deliberately. If you want to campaign for her be my guest.
1 Like