The Times has a lot to answer for regarding the 2016 election. So far they arenât doing it.
Lets be realistic, the only forum in which the NYT is adamantly and steadfastly aggressive in its reporting is anything anti-clinton whether it be true or false is irrelevant. Anything else is for sale to the highest bidder and has been for decades. The sooner people start to take this as fact, the less influence they will have on the american narrative.
The digital herd mentality is bad enough without Facebook adding rocket fuel to it.
The way to handle this, in my opinion, is to haul Zuckerberg and Sandberg to a public forum in Congress under oath, and even better, in front of Mueller. Before itâs said and done, I think theyâll have to come clean to the Special Counsel so as to determine exactly what crimes were committed by C.A. and possibly Facebook.
If Facebook knew C.A. had stolen private information and did nothing to stop them, they aided and abetted fraud against the United States.
The New York Times could put this story to rest by rehiring super stenographer Judith Miller and fabulous fabulist Jayson Blair to get to the bottom of it.
OT Whereâs âScooterâ?
âAll the comfort thatâs fit for the comfortableâ.
Facebook also failed every one of its users by not informing them of the theft of the data. Not necessarily the personal information people willingly gave away taking those stupid âFind Out What Kind Of Seahorse You Resembleâ quizzes, but rather the way it âfingeredâ out to everyone on their Friends list.
Google : Donât be evil :: Facebook : Be a weasel.
You mean like two weeks of breathless coverage of the âClinton Foundation scandalâ?
The Times is so obsessed with âbalanceâ that they loose their mooring.
Thank God for the WaPost.
Itâs mustelids all the way down.
I posit that they are also in business primarily to make a profit.
This âstoryâ is a complete nothingburger, imho. Itâs not as if they changed or removed the original story. Who cares if they âsoftenedâ the language? Itâs still a fact that Facebook is refusing to respond to questions about its behavior. Letâs not shoot the messenger here. The Times is hardly faultless, but as has been pointed out, they are also primarily a profit-making enterprise, not a crusader. If Law Blog (which Iâd never heard of before this post) doesnât like the way the story is reported on another site, how about doing their own research and publishing their findings? Interview Zuckerberg and Sandberg, donât attack a competitor.
Lean in to a cover-up.
Exactly. Thereâs nothing conspiratorial going on here. Rather, the NYT has built themselves a mighty high pedestal and have a meager capacity for sel criticism. When they make mistakes -all too often imho - folks are lining up for a chance to knock them off their perch.
Doesnât surprise me in the least that the Guardian got this scoop, not the NYT. If I had some scoop on my handsâsadly I donâtâI know where Iâd take it.
Well, the other forum in which the NYTimes is aggressive is in defending NYTimes reportersâŚ
From the Columbia Journalism Review:
"Consistent with other studies of media coverage of the election, our analysis finds that The New York Times focused much more on âdramaticâ issues like the horserace or personal scandals than on substantive policy issues. Moreover, when the paper did write about policy issues, it failed to mention important details, in some cases giving readers a misleading impression of the true state of affairs. If voters had wanted to educate themselves on issues such as healthcare, immigration, taxes, and economic policyâor how these issues would likely be affected by the election of either candidate as presidentâthey would not have learned much from reading the TimesâŚ
In retrospect, it seems clear that the press in general made the mistake of assuming a Clinton victory was inevitable, and were setting themselves as credible critics of the next administration."
Not surprising, the corporate media decided a long time ago who theyâd side withâŚ
I have read elsewhere (in a couple of placesâŚ) that Facebook was sanctioned by the Federal government a few years ago about data misuse, and that future instances of misuse would result in a $40,000 fine per occurrence.
So, 50,000,000 x $40,000=$2,000,000,000,000 ($2 Trillion).
Fine them out of existence.
ETA: Link to WaPo article about this:
The WaPo under Bezos has undergone a renaissance, but recall that during the Bush years the NYT, even with Judith Miller, was still a more reliable voice for dissenters than the WaPo. So we donât just need one good newspaper, but a whole bunch of them, because their objectivity waxes and wanes according to cycles of economic pressure.