When President Trump calls them the fake news he doesn’t denigrate them enough. I wouldn’t use the New York Times line a birds cage or potty train a new puppy. Imagine all the trees killed to produce something less useful than toilet paper
Each time I read something like this, I think of those imbeciles who actually believe the lies that the mainstream media is selling them. Beyond idiots.
One possible explanation comes from leftist critic Freddie deBoer who suggests that a change in the NYT’s business model explains the nature of its copy:
“Which gets back to the NYT knowing who pays their bills.
“As with so many recent bad publicshing decisions, rehabilitating FC reflects the paper’s increasing dependence on a subscriber-driven business model, where maintaining the sensibilities and emotional investments of its core readership - affluent brownstone liberals who would prefer the pleasant version of reality, thanks - often takes precedence over adversarial truth-telling. In an earlier era, when advertising and broad retail circulation were more central to its finances, the Times had greater latitude to challenge its most dedicated audience. Today, with digital subscribers a) the dominant revenue base and b) heavily drawn from demographics that are highly educated, high income, and progressive-leaning, there’s a clear incentive not to alienate a readership that is drawn to narratives of underdog triumphs and redemptive uplift. Facilitated communication fits neatly into that worldview, offering a reassuring story about disability that flatters the moral intuitions of well-meaning readers while sidestepping the far more difficult reality. The result is a kind of audience capture that encourages credulity precisely where skepticism is most needed. Who wants to read a downer story about genuinely non-verbal, deeply disabled people on their phone while they ride the 4 train uptown to take Kayleigh to her $20,000/year dance lessons?” https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/we-have-to-hold-the-line-against?r=3cmx2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
And the "NYC man" as mentioned in headlines who shoved two people off subway platforms, murdering one of them, is an illegal alien; but good luck finding a fake news outlet that even reveals him to be "undocumented," to use their fake words.
Our major legacy media - with limited exceptions - is worse than incompetent and/or stupid. It is consciously, deliberately, and maliciously outright evil.
For me--Batya ia one of the strong leaders (like Mark Levin) urging all of us who care, all of us who have a brain and know the facts, to speak out LOUDLY amd often. Push back is needed to defang the corrupt , evil MSM. It's not whistling on the wind is many of us do it.
At the same time, the media has also portrayed the synagogue’s security team as highly-trained. What I want to know is why a highly-trained security team would have let a stranger sit in their parking lot undisturbed for two hours.
Before the internet and social media, the only sources of news came from the mainstream press. Now we know the all the lies and obfuscations and they wonder why we don't trust them.
There was a time, long ago, when "human interest stories" were focused on people who did good things or suffered some misery through no fault of their own. Such stories were meant to emphasise the humanity of the people they featured and generate favorable emotions such as compassion.
Those stories were identified as such, and they didn't attempt to arouse compassion toward the terrorist murderers of children.
So here is NPR:
"Qasem, like many here, says he is heartbroken over the loss — and angry at Israel's relentless bombing. "What did the children do to deserve this?" he asks."
The answer is very straightforward: the children did nothing to cause bombing of the Bekaa valley, a place known for its support and training of terrorists (or "freedom fighters," if that's how one chooses to frame it.)
It was the parents of those children that have conducted deadly attacks on civilians, that did something to "deserve this."
NPR and the NYT, of course, are very careful in their appeals to emotion, careful to elide verified facts. They are not "news outlets" and do not "report."
The cynicism of those organizations, would be astonishing, had it not been obvious for the last fifty years, particularly NPR. Cynically selective elision of materially-relevant fact, has been the lingua franca of "yellow journalism" all along. Nothing to elicit comment about that.
It's more than simple editorial bias; they deliberately publish verifiable falsehood. This, also, is unsurprising to anyone paying attention.
What is noteworthy, however, is what is revealed about the character and intellect of those who choose to trust those outlets as purveyors of factual reporting. If there is a morality factor involved, it would be the motivation of those who choose to believe the utterances of proven liars.
It's a very human thing, this choice, not restricted to political leanings; it's a litmus test of self-interest represented as equanimity. Dishonesty can be very profitable within a high-trust society, but only until it becomes systemic, after which it destroys the basis of such a society, from within.
When one follows that chain of logic, verifying it at every step, what is seen cannot be "unseen." Knowing this, the motives of those who refuse to engage in dialogue with others who present verifiable facts in a civil fashion, are revealed.
Ironic to accuse them of cherry picking and you are doing it yourself. They told the whole story, while you only tell what you want your readers to know.
When President Trump calls them the fake news he doesn’t denigrate them enough. I wouldn’t use the New York Times line a birds cage or potty train a new puppy. Imagine all the trees killed to produce something less useful than toilet paper
Trump should just simply call them liars, and when challenged for doing so he should tell this story.
The NYT and NPR have indicted themselves. Again. They are not credible.
Each time I read something like this, I think of those imbeciles who actually believe the lies that the mainstream media is selling them. Beyond idiots.
"Beyond idiots"
Some, to be sure, Allan, but the core demographic are simply pursuing self-interest.
What's insidious, is the syndication of the product of outlets like NYT and NPR, into the corners of the information "ecosphere."
Our terrorism problem is primarily an immigration problem. Going back to the first WTC attack before 9/11.
Well before, actually. Ronald Reagan got scammed big time on immigration by “the swimmer” aka Teddy Kennedy.
Well he’s burning in hell with 72 crack whores instead of 72 virgins. Not even 72 goats. Poor PO🐷💩
One possible explanation comes from leftist critic Freddie deBoer who suggests that a change in the NYT’s business model explains the nature of its copy:
“Which gets back to the NYT knowing who pays their bills.
“As with so many recent bad publicshing decisions, rehabilitating FC reflects the paper’s increasing dependence on a subscriber-driven business model, where maintaining the sensibilities and emotional investments of its core readership - affluent brownstone liberals who would prefer the pleasant version of reality, thanks - often takes precedence over adversarial truth-telling. In an earlier era, when advertising and broad retail circulation were more central to its finances, the Times had greater latitude to challenge its most dedicated audience. Today, with digital subscribers a) the dominant revenue base and b) heavily drawn from demographics that are highly educated, high income, and progressive-leaning, there’s a clear incentive not to alienate a readership that is drawn to narratives of underdog triumphs and redemptive uplift. Facilitated communication fits neatly into that worldview, offering a reassuring story about disability that flatters the moral intuitions of well-meaning readers while sidestepping the far more difficult reality. The result is a kind of audience capture that encourages credulity precisely where skepticism is most needed. Who wants to read a downer story about genuinely non-verbal, deeply disabled people on their phone while they ride the 4 train uptown to take Kayleigh to her $20,000/year dance lessons?” https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/we-have-to-hold-the-line-against?r=3cmx2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
And the "NYC man" as mentioned in headlines who shoved two people off subway platforms, murdering one of them, is an illegal alien; but good luck finding a fake news outlet that even reveals him to be "undocumented," to use their fake words.
If the garbage media were around during WW II, they would dub Hitler an "Austrian man."
Our major legacy media - with limited exceptions - is worse than incompetent and/or stupid. It is consciously, deliberately, and maliciously outright evil.
Sadly Batya, do you ever feel like you're whistling into the wind when you indict the media with the obvious?
For me--Batya ia one of the strong leaders (like Mark Levin) urging all of us who care, all of us who have a brain and know the facts, to speak out LOUDLY amd often. Push back is needed to defang the corrupt , evil MSM. It's not whistling on the wind is many of us do it.
You are absolutely right.
At the same time, the media has also portrayed the synagogue’s security team as highly-trained. What I want to know is why a highly-trained security team would have let a stranger sit in their parking lot undisturbed for two hours.
I wondered the same
The NYT is the phony Potemkin Village of journalism.
Hurrah: media rhyme with mullah!
Before the internet and social media, the only sources of news came from the mainstream press. Now we know the all the lies and obfuscations and they wonder why we don't trust them.
Thanks lots fer this! No surprise, I jus' added a link to it in mah own piece ;-)
https://thcsofdaisymoses.substack.com/p/temple-of-mah-childhood-attacked
There was a time, long ago, when "human interest stories" were focused on people who did good things or suffered some misery through no fault of their own. Such stories were meant to emphasise the humanity of the people they featured and generate favorable emotions such as compassion.
Those stories were identified as such, and they didn't attempt to arouse compassion toward the terrorist murderers of children.
So here is NPR:
"Qasem, like many here, says he is heartbroken over the loss — and angry at Israel's relentless bombing. "What did the children do to deserve this?" he asks."
The answer is very straightforward: the children did nothing to cause bombing of the Bekaa valley, a place known for its support and training of terrorists (or "freedom fighters," if that's how one chooses to frame it.)
It was the parents of those children that have conducted deadly attacks on civilians, that did something to "deserve this."
NPR and the NYT, of course, are very careful in their appeals to emotion, careful to elide verified facts. They are not "news outlets" and do not "report."
The cynicism of those organizations, would be astonishing, had it not been obvious for the last fifty years, particularly NPR. Cynically selective elision of materially-relevant fact, has been the lingua franca of "yellow journalism" all along. Nothing to elicit comment about that.
It's more than simple editorial bias; they deliberately publish verifiable falsehood. This, also, is unsurprising to anyone paying attention.
What is noteworthy, however, is what is revealed about the character and intellect of those who choose to trust those outlets as purveyors of factual reporting. If there is a morality factor involved, it would be the motivation of those who choose to believe the utterances of proven liars.
It's a very human thing, this choice, not restricted to political leanings; it's a litmus test of self-interest represented as equanimity. Dishonesty can be very profitable within a high-trust society, but only until it becomes systemic, after which it destroys the basis of such a society, from within.
When one follows that chain of logic, verifying it at every step, what is seen cannot be "unseen." Knowing this, the motives of those who refuse to engage in dialogue with others who present verifiable facts in a civil fashion, are revealed.
Ironic to accuse them of cherry picking and you are doing it yourself. They told the whole story, while you only tell what you want your readers to know.
what?