It's right in that they don't often feed you with provably false stuff --at least not at the time of publication (such as Hunter's Laptop being Russian misinfo but now owned up to by Hunter himself) but yes, they lie by omission, innuendo/leading and half truths. Similar to how quite a few social programs are based on small unreplicated studies that sound good on paper --the intent matters more than the results or reality.
> The point is: the media rarely lies explicitly and directly. Reporters rarely say specific things they know to be false. When the media misinforms people, it does so by misinterpreting things, excluding context, or signal-boosting some events while ignoring others, not by participating in some bright-line category called “misinformation”.
I don't think it's true (why would it be), and even it is true, it is stupid to assume that it is true. It only can cause harm, but no benefits at all.
What do you not believe is true? That print space in newspapers is limited so you have to report selectively and your news organisation may just find one category of articles more relevant or interesting or important than another?
Bad take. For one, any time you try to evaluate "the media" as a single entity, you've already failed. Secondly, the first example of "not really lying" is most definitely a deliberate lie.
The entire point of the article is to damn with faint praise. The NYT is no worse than infowars. Both may mislead and omit extremely relevant information but actual lies, no. It’s a knock on the NYT and by extension the entire news media journalism complex.
Which is stupid. Infowars is an absolute sham from top to bottom and the leader of Infowars is an absolute monster who will spend the rest of his life paying restitution for well-proven slanders. And has never produced a single "scoop" of verifiable value in it's history.
Meanwhile, the NY Times has made a few mistakes or let some bias slip through by the human beings who work there and produce thousands of relevant and accurate stories per year. Many of which are of vital national interest.
Because the data was completely misrepresented. VAERS is unvetted raw data from the public. Anyone who has experience or imagined a malady after self-reporting that they received a vaccine dose can make a report to VAERS. Portraying VAERS reports as conclusive causation is most definitely lying.
The headline presents the conclusions as unambiguous: "New Vaccine Data Shows Alarming Number Of Stillbirths And Miscarriages Caused By Covid Shot". Aside from referring to "covid shot" as a single thing and the 8 different vaccines available.