Dan GillmorNot the Onion:
The NY Times editorial page published a "Really, Trump isn't all that right wing, just relax" op-ed today.
Look, the Times editorial page has every right, and maybe even a duty, to publish differing viewpoints. But it should -- at the very least -- not publish rank, obvious bullshit.
The (several) reasonable points in that op-ed, which gets no link from me, are overwhelmed by the avalanche of tendentious propaganda.
The piece is an embarrassment, not just to its author but more meaningfully to the Times.
The New York Times once published a story about Hitler in which the reporter wrote -- and editors approved -- the following: "But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers..."
That should have left an indelible lesson. It didn't.
The Times repeats its worst failures. It's institutional.
(h/t @dkiesow)
your auntifa liza 🇵🇷 🦛 🦦@dangillmor @dkiesow i don't think NYTimes encourages their writers to study and refer back to their archives. they have chosen to close access to almost a century of their articles, so am even wondering if they are forbidden to do so.
keithzg@blogdiva @dangillmor @dkiesow No need to explicitly forbid it if you know your job is forfeit if you bring up such awkward questions as "maybe we shouldn't always be giving the benefit of the doubt to far-right blowhards and the wealthy elite", nobody's going to go looking for proof for a thesis they know will be their last column and probably won't even make it to print.