That is barely credible given the source is Breitbart.

An aside note: I have noticed that recently (starting about one year ago) there has been a meme of Breitbart not being a reliable source, while its opposite counterpart Huffington Post does not seem to have this reputation. I wonder if there is a better reason for that than just political disagreement, perhaps there are studies on the relative reliability of different sources (online and offline)? Thanks!

Admittedly I have not fact-checked a statistically significant sample of their articles. But their Wikipedia article for instance tells a tale of published falsehoods, conspiracy theories and the like.

The political disagreement is an orthogonal factor, but does play a role, of course.

Are you really too lazy to do your own fact checking on a case to case basis instead of relying on these rediculus memes to keep yourself from reading something that might hurt your feel feels?

If you are alleging that they photo-shopped these screenshots - it would be intellectually honest to present a proof, rather than just smear the source, because you don't like it.

For the record, I am not alleging this in particular. For all I know, it might be true. Although given Breitbart's history reading anything on that site does not hold much value.

After all, they have run stories about Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring and continuously deny the scientifically evident reality of climate change, for example.

So, using your logic, I assume nothing in the NYT holds much value to you, because they have run stories (without proving any evidence) about "Trump and the prostitutes" in Moscow?

Do you have any reason or evidence to support that comment?

From https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-...:

>The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of UNSUBSTANTIATED reports

>The summary is based on memos generated by POLITICAL OPERATIVES SEEKING TO DERAIL MR. TRUMP’S CANDIDACY

>The memos describe sex videos involving prostitutes with Mr. Trump in a 2013 visit to a Moscow hotel

(emphasis mine)

They make it very clear they were unsubstantiated and generated by people with a clear intent and bias, there is no comparison to BB's knowingly publishing falsehoods.

Please see my reply in another sub-thread.

Has the NYT ever claimed that Trump met prostitutes in Moscow?

Go ahead, find a link saying they have.

Did Breitbart push the PizzaGate sex ring story? [Yes](https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/789143692540055552), [absolutely](https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/33636278100561920).

This is off-topic, so very briefly:

The NYT published at least two stories about an "unverified" dossier on Trump. Admitting it is unverified, yet they claim:

1. "consequences have been incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day" 2. "By all accounts, Mr. Steele has an excellent reputation"

Is it just me, or do they (subtly) suggest that, while "unverified", there may be something to the dossier?

If it is unverified (and quite damning), why publish it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-...

>If it is unverified (and quite damning), why publish it?

They are reporting on the effects of unsubstantiated reports, not publishing them as fact. A far cry from BB knowingly publishing falsehoods.

>Has the NYT ever claimed that Trump met prostitutes in Moscow? Go ahead, find a link saying they have.

You skipped over that part. Have they ever claimed that?

or the sinking of the maine

That's not "now". People were doing this in these recent years.

And it's sort of ... makes sense. You should be allowed to augment your mind with fucking spreadsheets/lists.

It's different if a government/company does it.

It's not the augmentation method that's the problem. It's the apparent fact that managers/etc at Google are apparently building secret lists of people they won't work with because of ideological reasons. That's both morally awful and quite insubordinate.

What should they be doing instead? (1) STFU. (2) Do their jobs.

It's called being professional.

They are noting who they would rather not work with.

That means when they can pick new people for their team(s), they try to pick from those who are not on their shit list.

But if their supervisor tells them to work with X, who happens to be on a no-no list, they won't start a hissy fit. (They might try to influence their higher up to reconsider.)

And in big corps like google it's not too surprising that people with very different worldviews try to stay away from each other.

"they won't start a hissy fit"?

That's not what their comments (in the leaked screenshots) would seem to indicate. On the contrary, they seem ready to go to great lengths, lengths harmful to their employer, to carry out their stated personal policies.

At virtually any ordinary company, they'd be fired for this.