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)
Pait@dangillmor @dkiesow The NYTimes published a comment that reflected something that the reporter heard frequently and turned out to be awfully wrong story, 100 years ago. And this proves what point?
JCR 
@jcr @dangillmor @dkiesow Treating a newspaper over 100 years as a monolithic "they" that should never make mistakes when quoting people is not a good way to make arguments.
@jcr I suppose this is a slightly better argument but not by that much.
@pait every reporter doesn’t need to know every article ever published. It’s deliberately obtuse to make that lame straw man argument. But it is literally the editor’s job to avoid these kinds of obvious blunders. You don’t need to have memorized that specific article to understand the concept of the rise of nazism and fascism.