it’s refreshing that the nyt has joined the rest of us in reality and acknowledged that they’re just a tabloid

lol

The boundaries between news reporting and opinion pieces being increasingly softened is a trend that I've been observing all across the world in recent years, particularly in liberal-leaning newspapers of record. It doesnt surprise me tbh. No longer distinguishing between the two is the logical endpoint of the "facts have a liberal bias"-attitude which has become ubiquitous in their newsrooms. This is succinctly summarized by former NYT journalist Bari Weiss:



This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 22 2021 03:47pm

it's not a shot its a shoot, chip, & consciousness contract.


52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound,
and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

2 But unto you that fear my name shall the
Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings;
and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.



Like paul's vision of the third heaven, come to life from the spirit moving through the humble and poor man's hands Jame's hampton.
Who, in his suffering, found a crown of life to share with all - the day of Christ's return, made with salvaging scraps so satan could not prevent it's sanctuary.

https://i.ibb.co/B3JvVCX/Screen-Shot-2021-02-10-at-2-57-56-AM.png

2021: ZION:
Revelation 15:3, KJV: "And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,
Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints."
(hear the twinkling of the chorus):


This post was edited by lodd222 on Mar 22 2021 06:52pm

Isn't the argument that using the words "deceptive" is an opinion? If you said that Trump tweeted something "distasteful," that would also be an opinion. It seems like a KYA legal argument so that they don't have to actually fight it in court.

Here are the original articles: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/politics/project-veritas-ilhan-omar.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/researchers-say-a-project-veritas-video-accusing-ilhan-omar-of-voter-fraud-was-a-coordinated-disinformation-campaign.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/voter-fraud-misinformation.html

If you read the articles, there's very little opinion so I think its a very poor legal argument. The judge was correct to not dismiss the suit. Project Veritas will just lose this in court the old fashioned way and waste the NY Times' $$.

Also, I'd avoid posting articles by Mollie Hemingway. As someone who reads a lot of right wing news, she's one of the biggest hacks out there.

Project Veritas's argument is a bit broader than that. They're asserting that this was a predetermined narrative, where the NYT sought out sources which were known to be biased (e.g. people whom Project Veritas had previously reported on), and intentionally didn't seek out individuals (e.g. Project Veritas) who might have offered context / a contrasting opinion. They are relying on the NYT as far as "opinion" goes, because it is the NYT which is asserting that their news reporting is actually subjective.

In addition, they offer circumstantial evidence that implies collusion between the NYT authors and some of their sources, again to push a predetermined narrative that Project Veritas was spreading disinformation.



Project Veritas will have an easy time demonstrating that the reporting was sloppy, that the NYT did not reach out to relevant sources, and that the timelines on some of the articles obviously supports some of the aforementioned charges. But it's unlikely to be successful because it's inordinately difficult to prove actual malice.

I think the judge is being harsh because the NYT has advanced an incredibly weak argument. But again, the case has a very high bar to clear.

Mollie Hemmingway is very biased, but she was the only reporting I can find on this. I provided the actual judgement for context. Perhaps that's why we shouldn't be so quick to exclude alternative voices from the conversation.

Burn them all to the ground

The government needs to sort this out by coming up with a definition for journalism.

My suggestions: Journalism should not be allowed to use adjectives or adverbs in their content.

Anything that uses these two parts of speech is not protected by freedom of the press.

Ok so scumbags who cut videos to try to falsely prove a narrative were not interviewed for a hit piece on them?
No way!

Yea, this lawsuit is a joke.

I mean, it's not really important news, right? The only organizations pushing this narrative are RT, Washington Times, etc. At the end of the day, the NY Times was pointing out a pattern of bullshit from an organization with negative credibility. The only reason Project Veritas continues to exist is because of conservatives with extremely poor critical thinking skills.

I think this brings up an interesting question though. At what point did conservatives start supporting frivolous lawsuits? Growing up, it was a conservative position to be against frivolous lawsuits because they wasted $ and didn't produce any value.