dangillmor, (edited )
@dangillmor@mastodon.social avatar

The Intercept has published a damning deconstruction of the NY Times' "October 7 Expose".

Notable: The Times' standards editor "stepped back" from his position shortly after the piece appeared.

https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/

As former Public Editor Margaret Sullivan is quoted in the piece, the Times desperately needs -- no, the public needs -- a public editor again. The paper killed the position years ago, and essentially all accountability with it.

gmoke,
@gmoke@mastodon.social avatar

@dangillmor The NYTimes had a public editor for only 14 years. WashPost had one for 43 years before eliminating the position in 2013. NYTimes said the position was too important for a "single intermediary" and WashPost said the Internet made it redundant.

richard_merren,
@richard_merren@mastodon.social avatar

@dangillmor Thanks for the reminder of why I don't generally read the intercept. That was a terrible hit piece, full of "this raises questions" and "I have doubts" with very little substance. If you already disbelieve the widespread rape allegations, and just want another reference point for some kind of argument that the horrific mass murder spree was slightly less bad, you will enjoy this article. But if you are looking for any concrete information about anything at all, pass up the click.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • DreamBathrooms
  • ngwrru68w68
  • modclub
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • khanakhh
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • GTA5RPClips
  • megavids
  • tacticalgear
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • osvaldo12
  • everett
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • cisconetworking
  • provamag3
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines