Online media outlets are well known to lie and often do in cases such as these. They are the yellow press of our day.

Unlike 20th century newspapers, they don’t have ombudsmen or public editors who care more about truth than headlines (A traditional newspaper might make mistakes such as these, but they’d at least be embarrassed enough to issue a correction the day later). And since they publish in the USA, about US persons, they also have no fear of libel suits due to the US constitution’s commitment to free speech.

Anyone who is a public figure, or might become a subject of news coverage, needs to be very aware that their words will be taken out of context or lied about if needed to get clicks.

You're viewing the history of journalism through rose-tinted glasses. In the late 19th century, American newspapers conspired to start a war for no good reason. That dwarfs anything they've done recently (although the NYTime's role in starting the so called "war on terror" might come close.)

That’s why I said the 20th century, the “yellow press” I mentioned was the 19th century papers you’re talking about.

They did anything to sell a headline - in the 20th century, ethical standards for media were better for a while, although of course they have always been susceptible to influence by the government as you mention (whether Iraq, Vietnam, or more justifiable wars).

In the 20th century the NYTimes acted as Stalin's mouthpiece for 50 years, denying the Soviet-perpetrated genocide in Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor#Walter...

Which, again, is worse than anything they've done recently.

OK. At least, as your link shows, they eventually admitted they were wrong once the Cold War ended and the records became available.

In my experience outlets like the NYT do issue corrections - e.g. just over this weekend, they published a pretty questionable story about Judge Kavanaugh but then published a correction within a day when the article was challenged and compared to the book it was based on.

In comparison I’d be very, very surprised if VICE issued a correction for its lies about this reporting, which they boldly publish right alongside the documents debunking their faked quotes.

Many contemporaries of Walter Duranty knew he was full of shit, but for the NYTs his lies were politically convenient. That time it took them half a century to come clean. In your example with Kavanaugh, it took them no more than a year or so. So if anything, they're getting better.

Certainly some organizations have better reputations than others, and I do trust the NYTs more than I trust Vice. My point in all of this is that when talking of some sort of golden age in journalism, one needs to keep in mind the severity of lies told in the past, as well as the relative opportunity the truth had to surface in different eras. Could the NYTs have suppressed knowledge of the Holodomor so effectively in the modern era when the wrong viral video from some random bystandard with a smartphone can circulate widely without the assistance or cooperation of organizations like the NYTs?

I am not sure we differ in any more than degree. I agree even in the 20th century the media made mistakes and there were even outright frauds that went on for a while within my memory (Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and so on).

I mainly wanted to call attention to how online outlets are so focused on headlines and clicks they have even less incentive than the past to be truthful or curate a reputation for accuracy.

When your views depend not on a base of weekly subscribers or businesses advertising in the classifieds, but on how viral your story is and how many ad impressions it can get, the truth suffers even more than it used to.

Can information be suppressed as easily now? No, as you point out the primary sources of information are far more widely disseminated than they ever have been in the past (e.g. all the videos from both sides coming out of the Syrian civil war thanks to cell phones and YouTube). But if people are still trusting in secondary sources and don’t check the primary source when it’s available, that doesn’t help as much as it could.

Thank you for clarifying this, and I have noticed and shared the same concern about these articles putting words in Stallman's mouth.

Please note, I am one of the people in tech who thinks Stallman should resign from leadership roles for the comments he made; the media coverage which mischaracterises his comments and especially so in headlines (looking at you, Vice) is unethical, and damages the assessment of what he actually said.

What he actually said, unfortunately, is in my view incompatible with him continuing in his leadership roles.

This. BS article by Vice and the like... This is terrible

There's a time and a place for philosophical arguments. RMS chose poorly in this case both in the time and place. The outcry is the social cost.

I don't fully understand the point you are trying to make. At the end of the day, Stallman is trying whitewash Minsky's responsibility by trying to pretend that a 70-something year old man didn't know that the underage girl at convicted Jeffrey Epstein's private island wasn't actually "entirely willing".

In other words, he's taking us on this garbage thought experiment that Minsky is somehow an innocent bystander. To even arrive at that talking point is asinine.

I don’t disagree with most of the points you make. Stallman was defending Minsky using rather dubious arguments. But he was not defending Epstein, and he did not say Epstein’s victims were “entirely willing.” And yet, those last two points were the crux of the case against him.

The point I’m making is that many, many people are deliberately lying or willfully misreading what Stallman wrote in order to force his resignation. Those using such tactics, in violation of their own cherished principles, ought to be ashamed of themselves. Instead, tonight they are celebrating their victory with glee.

> convicted Jeffrey Epstein

The alleged Minsky assault happened in 2001.