[S_A_P]

Seeing a lot of evidence of late that NYT Journalists arent playing fairly. The Greenwald article which despite its problems points out bad faith on the part of Taylor Lorenz(I think that is her name) and now we have WHO scientists claiming that Javier C. Hernández and James Gorman have bent the truth. I wouldnt be as bothered by this if it were possible to call out bad journalism without being dismissed as a "fake news-er".

What news organizations can we really trust now?

[loosetypes]

Just to add to the list, Noam Chomsky has long maintained that the NYT has a very strong agenda regarding Israel which manifests in any and all related coverage.[1]

Such an idea ran contrary to my long held sentiment for the NYT as rational and unbiased but I am seeing it more and more.

[1] Chomsky writes about this in Understanding Power.

[sgregnt]

Noam Chomsky has an agenda himself, I would not use him as a factual reference for any such perceived bias.

[Fricken]

Chomsky is transparent about his agenda, and that's the best you can hope for from anybody.

[dogma1138]

And what does NYTs coverage of Israel has to do with the issue on hand?

[lobotryas]

None by themselves. Every news source has an agenda; no exceptions. That’s like asking: what’s one food I can eat forever and stay healthy? Our only recourse is to consume a varied diet of news sources.

One tool we do have now is the ability to subscribe to youtubers and similar people who try to make a living from telling you about the news. The benefit here is that you have them search through news for you and then give you a summary or analysis.

Obviously I won’t mention names because someone will immediate chime in to start an argument. You’ll have to do your own digging.

[nojokes]

In addition you also should be informed about the food you are eating - how many carbs, fat, protein etc. The same with news sources.

[ahepp]

Do you have a link to the Greenwald article in question? It sounds interesting.

[belorn]

I would guess it is this one: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-journalistic-tattletale...

It basically describe the now pretty common practice of trawling social media sites and forums for something which can be made into news, conducted by very large news papers like NYT.

In my view its a kind of low effort data mining when there is news droughts. Nothing to report? Then go and look up the all the employed truck drivers in the nation and see if you can find one that does not have a driver license (it most likely exist one or two). It does not ask if the portion of truck drivers that have lost their license is higher than the overall population, or provide any insight into the profession, but rather just want to attract reader attention by highlighting something which look controversial.

[refurb]

I get your point but this one article of many written by Glenn on the topic of crappy journalism and a lack of accountability, even among the reporters at the NYTimes.

This article is about a social media post, by a journalist at the NYTimes, accusing a highly visible person of using a slur that never actually happened. And once corrected, this reporter basically hides and asks why everyone is attacking her.

He’s using this event as an example of an on-going issue.

[ahepp]

Maybe I'm way off here, but it looks like you may think the person you're replying to is saying that Greenwald's article is "a kind of low effort data mining when there is news droughts" (etc)

I believe they are agreeing with Greenwald, and saying that the Times reporter is the one in the wrong.

Or this is just a vexing parse for me

[refurb]

No, you are correct! I completely misread that.

[S_A_P]

This is the one. Thanks.

[offby37years]

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-journalistic-tattletale...

[_y5hn]

Go to the facts. Journalists check facts all the time. Most reporting is always inaccurate to insiders, so don't blindly trust what is said by anyone.