[darawk]

No, but they published something that confirmed their priors, and didn't due their due diligence on it because it confirmed their priors and was the kind of story they wanted to write. They have to be held to account for that.

[scotchio]

Agree. Just don't see it as malicious

[wpasc]

Perhaps not malicious, but publishing a more or less BS story to fit a narrative is not far from malicious on the spectrum of intention (especially if the narrative is in the NYT's business interests).

[solveit]

Malice is completely unnecessary for the world to go to shit. Very few people are actually malicious in any meaningful sense of the term. Most bad things happen when generally good people cut corners.

[mehrdadn]

I think you can assume "acting maliciously" was intended to be a catch-all for something more general, like maybe "acting in a grossly disrespectable manner", regardless of whether the intentions were actually malice or not.

[bluecalm]

The old question is if it makes any difference if you're dumb on purpose or just inherintly ignorant. It makes little difference at the end of the day, it's still your fault to not take steps to correct your ignorance and it doesn't matter for the effects of your actions.

[Consultant32452]

It's also important to remember that social media and tech firms like Google are a direct threat to their long term survival. YouTubers offering low budget news is eating them alive.

[patrick5415]

So you’re degrading the charge from maliciousness to incompetence?