If you have evidence of them lying, you’re more than welcome to submit that on the discussion pages. I don’t know which articles you’re referring to, but given my historical knowledge of wars in the Middle-East, they likely sourced US mouthpieces or analysts, rather than making the claims themself
You’ll find “common knowledge” is surprisingly hard to prove when you’re wrong. Wikipedia is a big place, if you can find concrete evidence of NYT lying, you can do a lot of reputational damage to them (even as so far as getting them removed as an acceptable source)
“Astroturfers” may be a more accurate term. Especially in regards to Israel and Ukraine. There’s videos you can look up where they train Zionists to astroturf forums and strategically edit Wikipedia. The US Air Force has a massive astroturf farm at Eglin Air Force base pushing a lot of this, too.
Whether these commenters are professional astroturfers, or just repeating what they’ve heard from one, I don’t believe it a meaningful distinction to make.
LoL. I guess manufacturing consent for wars does absolutely nothing to harm their credibility. This list is dogshit.
The New York Times has been a full-throated government mouthpiece since at least 9/11. At this point, Teen Vogue has more credibility.
If you have evidence of them lying, you’re more than welcome to submit that on the discussion pages. I don’t know which articles you’re referring to, but given my historical knowledge of wars in the Middle-East, they likely sourced US mouthpieces or analysts, rather than making the claims themself
LoL. Are people unaware of the NYT’s culpability?
Acting as a stenographer for the state isn’t “journalism.”
He asked for sources and you just act superior and yet didn’t provide sources.
The sources
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies
Take those with necessary salt and tequila if wanted. One of them is literally “nyt is mean to apartheid musk”
If I tell him the sky is blue, and he asked for a source, am I obligated to provide that as well?
I’m not going to play along with bad faith questioning of common knowledge.
Imo, while not exactly proper science, a quick source for such a claim could be a simple color photo of the sky.
Leaving aside the “bad faith questioning” component, how would you handle requests for proof of what you are calling “common knowledge” in general?
You’ll find “common knowledge” is surprisingly hard to prove when you’re wrong. Wikipedia is a big place, if you can find concrete evidence of NYT lying, you can do a lot of reputational damage to them (even as so far as getting them removed as an acceptable source)
Seeing a lot of bots defend Wikipedia the past couple months. Is that because it’s so easily manipulated by y’all?
How are you determining that they are bots? Would you, by chance, have any examples?
“Astroturfers” may be a more accurate term. Especially in regards to Israel and Ukraine. There’s videos you can look up where they train Zionists to astroturf forums and strategically edit Wikipedia. The US Air Force has a massive astroturf farm at Eglin Air Force base pushing a lot of this, too.
Whether these commenters are professional astroturfers, or just repeating what they’ve heard from one, I don’t believe it a meaningful distinction to make.
Ah yes, beep boop