It's fascinating to see papers like Washington Post turn their noses up at the Post story because they haven't independently corroborated it, yet they were immediately citing the NYT Tax story as gospel with no indication that they had independently corroborated the legitimacy of that evidence (I tracked down their first articles on the topic via Google News and found nothing indicating that they were able to independently verify the validity of the documents).

This being the same newspaper that was forced to settle a lawsuit after defaming a minor in seven articles by lying about an interaction he had with a protestor--even though the encounter had been recorded and was freely available online.

These are the folks who are sticklers for independent corroboration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/washington-po...

The New York Post doesn't have a great track record on being factually accurate though, whereas the Washington Post can reasonably assume articles published by the New York Times have undergone some reasonable standard of fact checking (even if imperfect), so it's not a reasonable comparison.

NYT has become increasingly click baitish, and leaves out facts and mis-frames stories all the time. They publish opinion pieces as if they were factual, and and leave out key facts in stories or add opinion in to frame it in a way no reasonable person looking at the hard evidence would assume is the case.

They've lost their standards a while ago. The difference with these papers is they use the same tricks other papers do, they just write in a more "intellectual" fashion so you never question it because you feel smarter just reading it. But you go check multiple sources and you find there is the same kind of spin and framing you'd expect from Fox News on a topic.

>> there is the same kind of spin and framing you'd expect from Fox News

Almost every independent analysis of media bias and journalist quality disagrees with you. In fact, I don't know of one that agrees with you.

Allsides.com rates the NYT (news, not opinion) as 'leans left' and rates Fox News (news, not opinion) as 'leans right'. Which ones disagree?

second this, twitter's bias did not start with the recent one, it has been a while, quite a while.

facebook is no better, google search no better either.

someone should be locked up, to avoid further tensions between two sides and who knows, maybe civil war or something alike. People can die because of its biased censorship.

I really hope someone reached out to the NDA protected people working at FB/twitter to establish exactly where the bias lies.

We know that despite loud voices arguing about conservative bias it is the opposite, that conservative voices get a pass.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne...

The crowd tangle data shows conservative news being the most powerful when it comes to discussions, but Facebook is saying reach is not the same.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/02142744614/new-s...

This is exactly right. If FB, Twitter or HN apply their Terms of service rules selectively (or that the ToS are biased against specific political candidates or groups or opinions) -- then they are not a neutral platform.

If they are not a neutral platform, these companies must not be able to claim protections reserved for neutral platforms (like this section 230).

It is the same as a for-profit business must not claim same tax benefits as a Non-profit Charity. If they do, their execs will likely face jail time.

Systemic violoaters, would face more jail time.