[kyrra]

> at a minimum, is it too much to not publish outright provable lies?

I'd love to hear some examples. From what I can tell, they don't lie, but they will leave out details that may provide additional context (much like the NYT and WP opinion pages tend to do).

There is a careful line between opinions and facts. From what I can tell, the editorial board doesn't allow outright facts that can be disputed from being published. But things where there may be a disagreement on a given topic, they will allow it to be published.

[dillondoyle]

this is my all time favorite. which i get is a while ago, but i think the nsa cyber will resonate on hn more than current 'hot topics' (gender. biden policies. the guate piece this week really rubbed me the wrong way. worse it was doing the same thing the author critiqued of u.s. insiders lying to support corrupt interests)

the piece: torture and spying is great and stops terrorists! trust me. because of reasons. damned the research saying this isn't true and lack of any proof i could provide as the ultimate insider. that tan suit wearing barack will kill us all!!!

also having the temerity to publish this during peak bush hate too. balls.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/0...

though true that what used to be taken as facts are contested now. and history will never be fully settled timestamped and logged.

it just feels like they are winning with purpose. the christian right has built up an entire infrastructure to churn out 'academic' research, opinion pieces, outright buying news media or creating outlets. all of which is then quoted in judicial opinions by their judges and then taken as the full stop truth; when often most other sources disagree or call it less severe and the source is at a minimum insanely biased