New York Times Article Filled w/Lies About Freeway Removals

[Rothman]

So, we have a thread about the credibility of a NYT story, and we aren't allowed to discuss the credibility of the NYT? Figures...

That's called an ad hominem logical fallacy.

[thspfc]

So, we have a thread about the credibility of a NYT story, and we aren't allowed to discuss the credibility of the NYT? Figures...

That's called an ad hominem logical fallacy.

Somewhat unrelated, but "logical fallacies" annoy me because they try to discredit everything that is not 100% proven fact as 100% false. Like if I say that a news source is 95% accurate (there is not a single American news source that is, but theoretically), then the logical fallacies would say that there's still a 5% chance that a particular article is not accurate, and therefore it can't be trusted.

[hotdogPi]

Like if I say that a news source is 95% accurate (there is not a single American news source that is, but theoretically), then the logical fallacies would say that there's still a 5% chance that a particular article is not accurate, and therefore it can't be trusted.

The New York Times is one of them, as are most others with a paywall.

[thspfc]

Like if I say that a news source is 95% accurate (there is not a single American news source that is, but theoretically), then the logical fallacies would say that there's still a 5% chance that a particular article is not accurate, and therefore it can't be trusted.

The New York Times is one of them, as are most others with a paywall.

You think that the NYT is accurate?

Do you realize how biased it is?

A "news"  source whose signature piece is the 1619 project is not 95% accurate.

[hotdogPi]

The 1619 Project is controversial, but not blatantly false unlike the article in the OP or many of FOX/Breitbart/OANN's articles.

There does seem to be something in common with both the article in the OP and the 1619 Project, though: it's looking back at the past, not news. The people at the New York Times are primarily focused on news, and you need historians for reanalyzing the past.

[thspfc]

The 1619 Project is controversial, but not blatantly false unlike the article in the OP or many of FOX/Breitbart/OANN's articles.

There does seem to be something in common with both the article in the OP and the 1619 Project, though: it's looking back at the past, not news. The people at the New York Times are primarily focused on news, and you need historians for reanalyzing the past.

The claim that the United States was founded on racism and slavery rather than the desire to be independent from Britain's government is blatantly false.

[Roadgeekteen]

The 1619 project is biased but not straight-up lies.

[sprjus4]

The 1619 Project is controversial, but not blatantly false unlike the article in the OP or many of FOX/Breitbart/OANN's articles.

Every news media is bias and have had blatantly false stories... on both sides.

[hotdogPi]

Every news media is bias and have had blatantly false stories... on both sides.

The biased ones on the left include HuffPost, Vox, and Daily Kos, and even then, they're mostly biased by what they choose to cover more than accuracy issues. The New York Times is not like any of the three mentioned above.

[thspfc]

The 1619 Project is controversial, but not blatantly false unlike the article in the OP or many of FOX/Breitbart/OANN's articles.

Every news media is bias and have had blatantly false stories... on both sides.

Absolutely. The right wing media isn't as well known, but it is just as and in some cases even more biased than the mainstream left wing media. Everyone is biased.

[hotdogPi]

mainstream left wing media

Most mainstream media is not left wing.

The only mainstream left wing media is MSNBC, if you don't count the three semi-mainstream ones I mentioned above and Buzzfeed (which is user-generated instead of being a traditional news source).

[thspfc]

The biased ones on the left include HuffPost, Vox, and Daily Kos, and even then, they're mostly biased by what they choose to cover more than accuracy issues. The New York Times is not like any of the three mentioned above.

You mean like how the Times chooses to write article after article about police brutality towards blacks, but there's not a peep from them about black-on-black violence, black-on-white violence, or really any other type of violence besides police vs blacks?

[hotdogPi]

The issue is more with police attitudes towards blacks in general. Arrests are much more common than being shot (for anyone), and there's a clear racial bias with police arrests. However, since many of those happen every day, only the more major events make the national news.

[thspfc]

The issue is more with police attitudes towards blacks in general. Arrests are much more common than being shot (for anyone), and there's a clear racial bias with police arrests. However, since many of those happen every day, only the more major events make the national news.

And what about black-on-black violence, which kills many more people than police?

[hotdogPi]

The issue is more with police attitudes towards blacks in general. Arrests are much more common than being shot (for anyone), and there's a clear racial bias with police arrests. However, since many of those happen every day, only the more major events make the national news.

And what about black-on-black violence, which kills many more people than police?

Most killings are within a small area (such as a neighborhood), and the victim is also quite likely to be someone the perpetrator knows. This means that both the perpetrator and the victim are often both the same race and/or ethnicity. This isn't noteworthy.

[thspfc]

The issue is more with police attitudes towards blacks in general. Arrests are much more common than being shot (for anyone), and there's a clear racial bias with police arrests. However, since many of those happen every day, only the more major events make the national news.

And what about black-on-black violence, which kills many more people than police?

Most killings are within a small area (such as a neighborhood), and the victim is also quite likely to be someone the perpetrator knows. This means that both the perpetrator and the victim are often both the same race and/or ethnicity. This isn't noteworthy.

It's only "not noteworthy"  because it doesn't help push the NYT's narrative.

[Scott5114]

Posts were already removed from this thread for getting off-topic into the political discussion of whether certain media outlets are biased or not. So in place of a hint being taken, thread's over.