1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The New York Times Big Con.

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by Arc, Sep 10, 2018.

  1. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    The New York Times is playing us, and the media is eagerly falling for the paper's big con.

    The con the Times is running is their claim they could not reveal the information in the now famous "senior administration official" anonymous op-ed except by allowing the source to write anonymously. The Times also covertly expects us to take the op-ed, not as an opinion piece, but as hardcore breaking news mixed with some opinions by the author(s).

    It's all a big scam for the Times to make allegations of fact by proxy while distancing itself from its journalistic obligation to verify facts alleged by hiding behind the wall of an anonymous op-ed. It suits their agenda while shielding them from backing it up.

    There are five categories or ways the New York Times and any other reputable journalistic news source can define how to use information it learns from a person that it deems credible such as the "anonymous senior official." They are:

    On the record;

    Off the record;

    Not for attribution;


    Deep background.

    We all understand "on the record." But few people fully understand the other four categories.

    Off the record: The information from this source may not be used at all. If you can get the same information from another source, you may use it, but you may not attribute it to the source who told it to you off the record.

    Not for attribution: You may use the information as background, but not identify the source.

    Background: This is similar to "not for attribution." Generally, it means that you may use the information but can't attribute it. Some reporters define background as the ability to use the information with a general attribution such as "an administration official said." If you are in doubt during the interview, ask the source how you can identify her or him, and give the specific wording you intend to use.

    Deep background: This term is rarely used or understood by most sources except for officials in Washington D.C. It means you may use the material for your information only but may not attribute it at all, not even with a general term, such as "government of official."

    What reasonable good-faith person or any journalist could not have handled the information as a hard news story using any of the five categories above? Of course, there is no reason not to do so unless one wants to spread news but not be held accountable for its accuracy.

    Meanwhile, the rest of the rabid media doesn't care about the Time's journalistic con because the anonymous quotes offers up food for the always ravenous media. Consequently, the rest of the media just skips over the misconduct and focuses only on non-attributed allegations.
    Allene and ethics like this.
  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    NYT = Pravda
    Arc likes this.
  3. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    I would think Izvesta would be more accurate, as the NYT considers themselves to be "the paper of record."

    And doesn't Pravda mean truth? I think the NYT is pretty far from that...
  4. Andy


    I think he was getting at, in the Soviet sense of the original Pravda was “ this is the truth as you WILL believe it, or else!”
    MemphisMark and ethics like this.
  5. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    I was being facetious. Some of my jobs in the Navy required deep study of "our greatest potential adversary."

    I have admired (on a horrified way) how the Soviets did things. "Do as we tell you, repeat as we teach you, or we will shoot you in the head and bill your family for the cost of the bullet."

    I suppose that's better than places where they fire into crowds if they aren't "enthusiastic enough" when Dear Leader drives by.
  6. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    We are really skirting Godwin's law in this thread.
  7. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Yes, I've can't help but notice how the OP, (despite being the OP), is almost a stand-alone "thread" in of itself with little connection to anything else that follows.
  8. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Let me re-iterate then.

    New York Times is a mouthpiece of not just Liberals but Progressives. Progressives today is little National Socialists (how's that, Shiny) wrapped under Democratic Socialists, with authoritarian Communism at its core.

    Not unlike the origins of Pravda of 1905 which eventually became the main mouthpiece of said "Progressives".
    Allene and Arc like this.
  9. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Progressives are actually regressives, demanding that the common people reassume their roles as serfs to their Lords (namely, them). The proper term for a Progressive is actually Leftist.

    And the NYT is happily leading their useful idiots to the slaughter.
    Allene and ethics like this.
  10. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    In addition, they are unquestionably the most dishonest tier one newspaper in the United States. When you measure their legendary stature, professional legacy and mainstream rating they are when comparing all that to the reality of the product, the worst newspaper in America.
    Allene likes this.
  11. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    No disagreements from me.

    Truth to be told, plenty of people on this forum -- yours truly and yourself -- have been mentioning this over the years. I think this time it's different because of Trump.

    Trump MADE them come out of their safe zones and show everyone who they really are at the core.

    To me, US media like NYT, are the true hazard to our country. Not single leader in one of the three branches that are constantly checking themselves.

    No one is checking NYT.
    Arc likes this.

Share This Page