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)
Cymphoni Fantastique@dangillmor @dkiesow
My brother in christ. You mean to tell me they actually published holocaust revisionism?
I know I said flimsy credibility, but I'm gonna say they have no credibility.
Damon Kiesow@Cymphoni_Fantastique @dangillmor Check the datestamp at the top.
@dkiesow @dangillmor
Ah, yes. My bad. A little early.
It's still really dangerous rhetoric to be backing and defending. Kinda like now.
But to give them credit, the modern world did not know this was a thing humans were capable of on this scale (ignoring the various programs in the US and various parts of European empires, not least of them the slave trade, and others that predate written history).