Magine if they had applied this to WikiLeaks.
Saying "if it's true, it's ban able for X" without out bothering to say that obviously it's bannable if it's false, isn't saying it's true. How could Twitter even know?
WMD were non-factual, but even so nobody got censored back then (worse, nobody went to prison for going to war on non-factual information).
This is not even remotely close.
"Actual journalistic standards" yeah right! They literally carried out a fake news story about Nick Sandmann without any sort of verification. CNN settled 250 million $ lawsuit followed by Washington Post. Other publications are in the line next. They have zero credibility... especially after causing irreparable damage to a child's reputation by labelling him a racist when he was anything but. The real racists at the rally were those who accused this kid of racism. For full video of the actual altercation you can watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwNyOD8FIQk and decide for yourself.
Demonstration 1 of so called "Journalistic Standard": https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/business/media/washington...
and
Demonstration 2 of so called "Journalistic Standard": https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-new-york-times-rollin...
These things are in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you'd read those and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
I'll explain mine.
The New York Post has produced valid journalism. The Washington Post has produced bad journalism. Individual examples of these are not useful for making broad claims about the merits of these organizations because they produce such a huge volume of journalism. Continuing to complain about the Covington case until the end of time is not a productive way of arguing that all media outlets are garbage and doubling down by insisting that people who disagree are just sheep crushes any possibility of useful discussion here.
I would 100% agree with you if the same feeling is accorded to outlets like New York Post or any other right leaning media organization. I am not saying that the right leaning organizations are epitome of journalistic credibility. I am just like you calling bullshit as bullshit. But when you start standing on a high pedestal and start claiming "journalistic credibility" as some sort of differentiating factor while at the same time peddle in blatantly false news I will call you out. No matter if it hurts sentiments. I am not saying that New York Times or Washington Post did not produce valid journalism. They perhaps did a good 60% of the time. I will give them that. But to say they follow "actual journalistic standards" is straight out false. "Actual journalistic standards" entails that you verify your source of information before putting it out. That is for every story. No exceptions. If you have some stories that are going out being fact checked and some not then where is the "journalistic standard"? You set a standard to ensure that you never waver from it nor do you apply it selectively.
You fact check any information you put out. Not pull it down after others have fact checked you. Then what is the reason for your existence? I can get unverified news from social media directly! Why do I need a media organization then? I want to rely on media because it is a publisher which verifies stuff it puts out. That is the main job for media. If media is itself indulging in propaganda then what is the need for media? Especially in this social media age?
In that all organizations have failed. Not just left wing but right wing too. Sensationalism always triumphs. But there are some who take it too far: calling a kid racist without verification of facts. This is where I draw the line. You want to do politics do so between yourselves. Fight it out as adults. Don't involve children in your fights. This is a big red line that I don't want anyone crossing. I hope we both can agree on that. Anytime I see children being used as props for propaganda it turns me the F-off. Even if the Covington case was racial in nature it should not have been shown on TV let alone live TV. This is something that must have been dealt with at the school level. This is an age where the child is still growing. And while growing you make stupid decisions too. You have to give that benefit of doubt. To make him a media spectacle for your own benefits is not the way. You are causing mental trauma to the child. And in this case it is far worse because the kid was not racist at all! I have watched the 1.5 hours video in full length and couldn't find even 1 place where the Covington kids were racist. In fact, the kid actually stops his friend from arguing with the Native American and asks his friend to shut up while the Native American speaks. And we have media which turns around and makes this innocent kid into a racist and we should all be okay with it? No effing ways! I'll speak up even if I am in the minority!
Btw, Covington case is not an isolated one. We all know too well what happened to the Russian collusion hoax. None of it could be proved conclusively and moreover it ultimately resulted in the opposite: now we have evidence being unearthed that it was literally a planted story. Look up on what is happening with the Steele Dossier. Why is no one talking about it now? Because it was complete fabricated nonsense that was peddled by the media. A proper witch-hunt not based on any fact. Only innuendos.
Source or I call bullshit on this one.
> And notably none of the organisations was required to retract or apologize as part of the settlement.
Because that is the settlement. To save themselves from embarrassment and having to admit they faked the entire thing. I give credit to Nick Sandmann for being the bigger man here and settling instead of taking it all the way and making sure these media houses get crippled.
Anyways, the point here is not the amount of money settled. The point is that they faked the news and labelled an innocent boy a racist. You still haven't given a reply on that. Not that you are required to, but that is what is the crux of the matter here, not the money.
The difference is those stories had supporting details, with the reporters attempting to follow up.
Tax accounting is completely different to accounting you show to a bank for a loan. This is normal because they are used for different things, and are accounting for different things. For example - the tax rate and taxes paid have a real impact on cashflows which would impact your eligibility for a loan. In tax returns taxes paid are not included in profit and loss, because that would lower the tax paid by businesses.
So yes, NYT was absolutely gaslighting.
In my tax report I think my house is valued at 400 000 NOK.
When I talk to the bank it will probably be worth 4 200 000 NOK.
Tax authorities here know as banks update them every year.
Also in accounting it is common. I remember asking my teacher about it when we had basic accounting and it is simple: if you depreciate (?) an item to less than it is worth you just have to report a profit when you sell a "worthless" asset. (I'm not an accountant and English is not my first language but I think it should be possible to understand.)
It is like this for everyone!
Same with depreciation rules, when I learned the rules here my teacher was actually working with the tax authorities.
Depreciation in accounting is a technicality. And if you happen to sell a thing that is technically worth 0 in the books that just becomes an extra inflow of money to the company, which is taxable and so the tax authorities get their money.
Unless you have learned accounting, be careful :-)
They lost an editor for posting a mainstream opinion by an elected Republican... Note that they then shared the same sentiment about supporting police cracking down on protests in Hong Kong and received no internal pushback whatsoever.
The op-ed section isn't the news section. NYT is centre-left, NR is centre-right.
Anyway it won't hurt you to read things from the other perspective. The truth is often "in the middle" or only something you can triangulate after reading both sides.
Maybe I'm getting too bogged down in the op-ed section, like you say; but, it does make you think about the effect an op-ed section has on the news content as well.
I've seen hypocrisy on both sides for sure but the intellectual dishonesty is only coming from one.
Let me guess: "The Other One!"
But it is known to use sans serif fonts and hire people that went to public schools.
You say this like it's an insult.
Think of it like shooting the tires of all the cars you want to lose in a race. Sure you didn't push the winner across the finish line, but you made it damn near impossible for anyone else to even get there.
How about a straight forward algorithm for the feed instead of some hugely adbiased mess.
The fist sentence has a word "tabloid" in it. It's not reputable source of news by any stretch.
One thing I'm wondering is how can they censor it without getting either some evidence that it's fake or at least a clear denial? (Biden's campaign released a statement refuting it, but that's not the same as Biden himself publicly denying the claims.)
Thin evidence (someone found some damaging-looking emails) can be dismissed with thin counter-evidence (a denial). But it can't be dismissed with nothing.