"If #OpenAI is found to have violated any #copyrights in this process, #FederalLaw allows for the infringing articles to be destroyed at the end of the case.
In other words, if a federal judge finds that OpenAI illegally copied The Times' articles to train its #AI model, the court could order the company to destroy #ChatGPT's dataset. " #AILaw#GenerativeAI
I am not fond of David Brooks, but I certainly understand why he finds the Cass Report so compelling.
For cisgender people who have no pre-existing knowledge, it's really a perfect document. It is completely decorous while implying that there are too many trans people and efforts should be made to limit their numbers.#trans#transgender#news#journalism#newyorktimes
Be wary of New York Times articles by Maggie Haberman and Mike Schmidt that ostensibly address Trump's outrageous actions, but in substance actually normalize and both-sides this illegal behavior.
This is what this cleanup crew does time and time again. Likely Team Trump know some sort of legal action to curtail his threats is coming, and once again these trusted newshapers are thrust out ahead of events to sculpt public opinion.
Today in Labor History November 13, 1974: Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers union activist Karen Silkwood was assassinated during her investigation of a Kerr-McGee nuclear plant in Oklahoma. Her car was run off the road while she attempted to deliver documents to a New York Times reporter.
We deceive ourselves if we imagine New York Times and other mainstream media outlets don't know better, as they employ the deceptive both-sides nonsense.
They know better. They just do not intend to do better.
This rhetoric allows them to comfort their many deep-pocketed Republican owners, managers, readers who want to pretend that in voting Republican, they're not colluding with something malodorous, to get their tax cuts.
By #NYT's own admission, in the obituary of a propagandist hired by Mobil,
"Mr. Schmertz began buying space on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times to express [Mobil's] views in essay form."
Originally learned this from the brilliant podcast by @amywestervelt
called Drilled. Highly recommend.
Why are mainstream media outlets — looking at you, New York Times — arrogantly insistent on continuing their both-sides framing of Trump's current behavior? Dan Froomkin has some thoughts about this:
"On one side, you’ll find the traditionalists: the older, whiter, and supremely comfortable elite national and political writers and editors who are deeply invested in the current order."
"not just the younger and more diverse journalists but the ones from other desks – like international, investigative, business, lifestyles, culture – whose sense of self is defined by more than just not taking sides. It’s defined by informing the public of the truth.
Call them the silent journalistic majority, if you will."
"'Not taking sides' defines them, to a fault. These are the kinds of people rallying around former New York Times editorial editor James Bennet‘s endless whiny screed accusing the Times of insufficient bothsidesism and, at the Times, actually forming a group I call the smug caucus.
On the other side, you’ll increasingly find everyone else:"
"Call them the silent journalistic majority, if you will. They are doing real journalism – sometimes great journalism — and they are growing increasingly frustrated by their political colleagues’ inability to reckon with the current threat environment. …
For now, however, the traditionalists are very much in charge. Literally."
"The right wouldn’t be nearly as successful at [its war on higher education] without hefty assistance from a mainstream media all too willing to launder their bad-faith claims. As Georgetown political science professor Don Moynihan noted, the New York Times ran 13 stories about Gay in 10 days."
"A former president, who incited an insurrection, attempted a coup, is facing multiple felony indictments, and has expressly stated that he would like to be a dictator is planning to use the government to exact retribution on his enemies.
"Nothing about the New York Times’ conduct over the past three days, three years, or three decades should surprise anyone who has been paying even a little attention to the paper. The Times is a newspaper that falsely portrayed Al Gore as a serial liar and George W. Bush as a straight-talker; treated Hillary Clinton’s email hygiene practices as the most important issue in 2016;" (continued in /2)
Back of Bourke on what the New York Times is ALWAYS about when it comes to Biden, the Democrats, the left — and is about all over again with its latest poll of 980 people out of a population of 161.42 million, 30% of whom said they get their news from Fox:
"Sowing doubt. Always sowing doubt."
Yes. That sums it up. Sowing doubt. Undermining. Attacking. Trying in every way possible to move the needle to the right.
"Why is New York Times campaign coverage so bad? Because that’s what the publisher wants. …
Publisher A.G. Sulzberger — perhaps unintentionally — showed his hand in a speech on Monday at Oxford University on 'Journalistic Independence in a Time of Division.'"
David Kurtz rips New York Times (which royally deserves the rip) for its breathless, dishonest reporting on how Melania is "said to" be unhappy that her husband's on trial – quoting unnamed persons "familiar with her thinking." He writes:
"Yesterday’s Melania piece suggests that despite everything the NYT is going to haul this worn-out coverage into Trump II.
"As any #NewYorkTimes or #WashingtonPost reader could likely tell you, the new results are just as dismal. Political coverage at even the largest and most consequential newspapers consists almost exclusively of horse race reporting and #campaign gossip. Actual issue and policy examinations were nearly nonexistent." #journalism#democracy