NY Times should be investigated for being wrong all the time

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

Good morning Leftyg.
First, you still cling to your position of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh being propaganda. Your wrong. And your continued obstinance in this is not flattering. If The New York Times was as accurate as Fox and Rush have been over the past three years, they would not be going through the problems they have, and continue to have. And, behind closed doors, If their accuracy was in a pill form they would buy it.
I too, do not want a tit for tat dialogue between us over this or any other issue. We have had some very good discussions on some issues and I would like us to return to that point.
Now as to this column, that Matt Vespa is reporting on. (He was not the author, the NY Post was. He is just commenting on it)
You may recall that for me this is not a new topic. I have not been targeting the NY Times, but I have come out against the increasing number of false reporting wherever it occurs, especially in science. I recently offered my solutions in Remedy for Fake News.
All that being said, We come down to the commentary on the Times. Do you think they are becoming as CNN is now? Accepting both as liberal leaning, they both seemed to be agenda driven when it comes to President Trump.
Is it not fair to ask where this is all going? And, when will it end?
Bill Kristol committed journalistic suicide in his ant-trump agenda with his magazine. George Will has been relegated to his the closet in his basement.
So, again, I ask you, where do you think this is going?

[leftyg]

I think that the New York Times' biases are wherever the facts are at. I think the same is true of most news organizations. Conservative anger at the messenger is quite funny. Journalists re going to report what they find. That is not true of columnists and talk show hosts. They generally follow their biases. Also it occurs to me that you would be much further ahead going after the New York Post because it is a tabloid type journal.

What false statements has the NY Times made? Most of the stuff on science is opinion. Neither side can lie on Evolution because it is a theory and because most people really do not know what they are talking about anyway, and ignorance is always a way out of being called a liar.

But what about current events or politics have they lied about? Be specific.. Like I said, Matt Vespa or the New York Post were both wrong about the "flimsy" evidence against Trump. The evidence was factual and well documented with Trump even admitting he would do it and did do it to ABC News and to the entire press corp on the White House lawn and through his own chief of staff.

There is no need to remedy Fake News at the New York Times because I have not seen any and you have not alerted me to any.

The Fake News is with Trump, and I choose to call it propaganda. He and his emissaries are the purveyors. That is why I regularly go after Bob Frantz. But the flat out falsehoods are stunning. Trump says the economy was a mess when he took over which is not true. Unemployment rates were dropping, deficits were dropping. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-s ... t-rate.htm

It is profoundly irresponsible to say that President Obama was not a citizen https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics ... index.html https://www.politifact.com/subjects/oba ... tatements/ Why did Trump tell these vicious and baseless lies? The proof that Trump is lying is that Obama has an Hawiian birth certificate https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8191566&page=1

And what about the absurd assertion that Obama bugged Trump's headquarters in Trump Tower? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/p ... hones.html Here the Times takes a Trump lie and corrects it. He had no evidence that Obama bugged his residence; he just made it up. He cannot go around lying and making false charges about people.

You mention Bill Kristol and George Will. Both are intelligent conservatives who cannot stand the constant violations of the Constitution. Their integrity is intact. The question is have those who cling on to Trump still have their integrity, and to me the answer is a resounding "no!"

[Michaels153]

Okay i was wrong. there is no chance in having a good conversation with you.

[leftyg]

[leftyg]

Crickets from Michaels. I guess he chooses not to defend his hero.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

"Trump Has Made Us All Stupid. The Decline of Discourse In The Anti-Trump Echo Chamber" by David Brooke

I didn't say it. This is his column, from the New York Times.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Michaels, you have to understand that the sort of history the the 1619 project represents will always have its opponents and its proponents. The thesis that our history began in 1619 with slavery is debatable, but it is also a thesis worth explaring. You can intelligently come down on either side or ano any of the many sides that there are out there..

Also, Michaels, I would like to hear more from you and less from cut and pasted experts. leftyg

[Michaels153]

Unless I am reading a comic book, with the intention of escapism, I do not value hypothetical examinations after the fact. The 1619 project is a fantasy project that offers no constructive value. You seem to think that it is a topic worth exploring. Why?
Is it hard to believe, or harder to accept, that our country, founded as it was, has been a champion of freedom and liberty and that the history of our country has shown this?
Or is it easier to believe, or is it more desirable to believe, that our country is just another fraud, and not different than the fairy tales we were told as children?
A person's circumstances influences the outlook that one has about life but the past is not a determinant of our future unless you want it to be your excuse for anything and everything that goes wrong in your life. If you are looking for a scapegoat, you can always find one. That does not mean that the scapegoat is the cause of your problems, it is just a psychological crutch that is used to absolve a lack of resolve to overcome the circumstances.
I have only seen declarative statements from the 1619 project regarding their assertions. I have not seen evidence presented to suggest that our history is not what it was. And you have the noted historians, quoted from in the article that do not see any evidence to rebut our history either.
You do not see the harm that these endeavors cause because you were quick to accept and run with other msm themes. And you can argue this point, but you even participated in pushing and maintaining some of these false themes.

[Michaels153]

Hey Leftyg,
Instead of the New York Times going back four hundred years in an effort to (?) - set the record straight? Why doesn't the New York Times just go back the last three years and "set the record straight" about their stories in the President Trump - Russian collusion election hoax? The question is nearly rhetorical isn't it. And the question explains not only what the Times has been doing regarding President Trump, but it also explains their present 1619 project.
The New York Times is more interested in politics and thematic agenda activism than in true ethics based journalism.
Why wont the New York Times use Toulmins method of argumentation and explain why their articles on President Trump did not have the negative effect of spreading false based hatred. Or, why don't you try to do it in defense of the New York Times?
If you could set up a thread and argue that Franz flames the Racist flames over Ferguson, you certainly should find it easy to argue that the New York Times spreads hatred of Donald Trump.

[leftyg]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Michaels, the New York Times was right to do the article. First collusion is not a crime. Book one of the Mueller Report was about a "criminal conspiracy." Mueller and his team could not prove a conspiracy; that doe not mean that Trump's campaign did not conspire with Russians: it just could not be proved. I know it; the Times knows it; everybody but you seems to know it.

What would happen to our country if every report that did result in a conviction was termed a lie? That is crazy. The Times presented evidence, and evidently that was not enough to convince the Mueller team. The Times is not wrong all the time or even wrong on what it printed. Think of all the conservative outlets that would be shut down over their numerous lies about Hillary Clinton? Lets see just recently they went after Hillary for Benghazi, her emails and Uranium one and ll of them were completely discredited by the Justice Department https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01 ... on-results

Should Breitbart and the lot of them be shutdown? What they did was far worse. But getting back to the Times, they strive to tell the truth. And again there were many suspicious interactions between the Trump campaign and the Russians and continued coziness; there just was not enough to charge a crime. AND remember that according to DOJ policy the president cannot be charged with a crime while he is in office. Mueller had to respect that guideline.

Also, Mueller objected to Bob Barr's blatant distortion of the Mueller Report. https://www.npr.org/2019/05/01/71892764 ... -in-letter.

Remember keep your response relevant. We are talking about lies, not your interpretation of a newspaper report.,

[Michaels153]

Leftyg. You said you wanted to talk about one article at a time. I give you an article and you dont mention it.
My response was relevant The times lied when they said that President Trump tied the military aid to Ukraine officials working on the investigation.
And what interpretation? When you go to a store and buy something; you go to the check out counter where the items you want to buy are scanned, you then hand the cashier the money to pay for it, and then the cashier hands you the item and a receipt. Easy huh? you give the money, and they give you the product and a receipt. The times said " the president tied $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine to officials helping investigate the Bidens.
Now show me what the president got in return for the security assistance. What was that?, Speak up Leftyg its hard to understand you when your grumbling....Why yes, that is right, the President got nothing in exchange for the $391 million. Yet the Times said that money was tied to Ukraine officials helping investigate the Bidens. Ooops! The Times lied.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]