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.
Durward McDonellThe 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)
June Casagrande@dangillmor @dkiesow "Confirmed the idea." š
Bruce ElrickAccept extremest people at their word when they describe doing crimes.
Christopher 
I remember another article from the NYT around the same era citing an "source" that said he was "more calm" after his stint in prison. š
your auntifa liza šµš· š¦ š¦¦@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.
Mastodon MigrationApparently there is a meme among the MAGA crowd when asked if they agree with his dictator rhetoric, they say he doesn't mean it, just trying to 'own the libs.' The NYT feeds this dangerous meme.
daffy ~ % 
@mastodonmigration @dangillmor @dkiesow MAGAtās say that every time. Itās the easy out. We all know he just got caught being awful. If there is any joking in there somewhere, heās still kidding on the square. Ugh, MAGAtās are so vile.
mvario
Greg Bell@dangillmor @dkiesow @AnnemarieBridy people who use evil to attract evil followers are evil in truth, regardless of what may or may not be in their heart
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).
This is Hell
Ultra Verified šŗš¦ š¬š±Good God sounds like something David Brooks wrote
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 doesnāt need to know every article ever published. Itās deliberately obtuse to make that lame straw man argument. But it is literally the editorās job to avoid these kinds of obvious blunders. You donāt need to have memorized that specific article to understand the concept of the rise of nazism and fascism.
@dangillmor @dkiesow Eh, this is pure hindsight bias. It was 1922 and Hitler wouldn't be anywhere close to power for another decade. Mein Kampf wouldn't even be published for another 3 years. The Strasserites were still firmly in control of NSDAP and they were more interested in anti-capitalism than anti-Semitism. The hardcore anti-Communist, anti-Semitic shift didn't occur until the 30s.
@tobinbaker The point is that the NY Times got suckered by fascists, something it's done a lot in its history. @dkiesow
@dangillmor @dkiesow if you want to see some real Nazi apologism check this out from Better Homes & Gardens (published the same month as Kristallnacht):
http://new.wymaninstitute.org/2004/01/special-feature-hitler-in-homes-gardens/
Michael Ormsby@dangillmor āreliable, well-informed sourcesā. Not a whole lot has changed. Journalists have to do a better job of distinguishing between facts, opinions and questions. Sloppy, lazy journalism is ruining our world.