Quick, someone said something mean about one of Clinton's favorite newspapers, send out the bat signal! Except, as is typical of your attacks on me Gormwood, you're lying through your teeth. There's a thread, about Putin extending his term. I never had any plans to support him in that thread, and I was even going to make fun of him, but found the thread too toxic for humor, and decided to ignore it.
Although it's interesting that you say "any thread that casts Russia in a negative light" - because you're projecting, since you're the one who's defending Hilary Clinton, one of the chief warmongers in Iraq and Libya, irrespective of what she does, in any thread that casts her in a bad light, even when her actions are completely indefensible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU
Look, you're welcome to challenge any of the arguments I make, but if you're going to go in for name calling, I am going to continue exposing you as incredibly pro-Clinton. I'd rather focus on the substance of the argument than on defending myself, but to hear the most fervent Hilary Clinton defender on NSG accuse anyone else of bias, is rather laughable, and the "hear ye, hear ye, mah opponetz b poisonin' da wellz" is something I'd rather read on an elementary school RP board, than on an analytical for. Attack the argument, not the person making it, unless you want your own bias called out. Now can we go back to the topic at hand without the name calling?
Cisairse wrote:Shofercia wrote:
NYT's record:
Supported War in Iraq
Supported War with Libya
Supported Escalation in Ukraine
Supported Taking a Bigger Role in Syria
Supported Bolton's Book, which called for War with Iran, without even trying to discredit that part of it
I think the New York Times can independently assess how the military industrial complex's balls taste, since NYT constantly has said balls in their mouth.
Feel free to explain how NYT's reporting did any of that.
Gladly:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/ ... ing.usnews
The New York Times today issued an extraordinary mea culpa over its coverage of Iraq, admitting it had been misled about the presence of weapons of mass destruction by sources including the controversial Iraqi leader Ahmad Chalabi. In a note to readers published today under the headline 'The Times and Iraq', the editors of the newspaper said they had found "a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been".
"In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. "Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged - or failed to emerge," they continued.
Of course it's not like the New York Times learned anything, just that they apologized in a desperate bid to get their credibility back, akin to an alcoholic swearing that he'll never drink, is the New York Times swearing that they'll never call for war on questionable intelligence ever again. Cue the laugh track.
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/view ... ers_theses
This project derives a set of research expectations from the propaganda model, a structural model of the corporate news media developed by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. The model predicts that the news media will reflect elite views and priorities and marginalize views outside the range of elite opinion. Consequently, it is expected that the media will tend to support the elite’s preferred modes of exercising state power in international affairs. This often entails demonizing official enemies of the United States in order to justify military interventions while downplaying the crimes of the United States and its allies.
To see how well these expectations are borne out in recent times, I apply discourse and content analysis to a sample of the New York Times’ coverage of Libya in the weeks preceding the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya. Three research expectations are presented: Coverage will mirror the U.S. government story line, conforming to the tenets of American exceptionalism; Muammar Gaddafi will be demonized, the nature and extent of his crimes will be exaggerated; Gaddafi’s victims will receive extensive, sympathetic coverage, while black Libyan victims of the anti-Gaddafi opposition will be marginalized. The analysis of New York Times articles on Libya from February 15 to March 19, 2011, shows that the research expectations are met, providing empirical support for the propaganda model.
That's from an actual research paper, with facts, analysis, etc. As far as Ukraine's concerned, here's a tweet from Mark Ames. Contrary to the Clinton fan club assertions, Ames ain't exactly a fan of Putin; some time ago Ames made a crude and dumb comment, and Putin's Administration ousted Ames' paper from Russia over said comment; that was wrong. Unlike Gormwood, who rarely, if ever, critiques Clinton, as if she as an infallible dear leader, like Leonid Brezhnev pretended that he was, I'm open to criticism of Russia, and not a fan of Putin's recent extension of his term. Ames' comment should've been called out for its sheer lunacy and stupidity, but who here hasn't said something dumb? So with that said, here's Ames: https://twitter.com/markamesexiled/stat ... 1956232192
Hilarious how hard this @nytimes article struggles to pin North Korea's Ukrainian ICBMs on Russia, relying on crude suggestion
Long story short, Ukraine's couped-in leadership decided to underpay its nuclear scientists, who sold their work product to North Korea, because working in North Korea's better than starvation. To the New York Times this wasn't the fault of the US, Clinton, and Obama for going through with the coup; nope, that was the fault of Russia.
As for Syria, just look at their articles at the now discredited Douma Chemical Attack, which was later discredited, and cast massive shade on the leadership of the OPCW: https://mronline.org/2020/01/24/opcw-in ... uma-syria/
In May 2019, an internal OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the public. The document, authored by Ian Henderson, said the “dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders” in Douma “were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having been delivered from an aircraft,” adding that there is “a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft.”
After reviewing the leaked report, MIT professor emeritus of Science, Technology and International Security Theodore Postol told The Grayzone, “The evidence is overwhelming that the gas attacks were staged.” Postol also accused OPCW leadership of overseeing “compromised reporting” and ignoring scientific evidence.
Remember, a 12 year veteran losing his job, and/or resigning from the OPCW, is totally not a sign of OPCW's ineptitude, but two journalists resigning from RT, who worked there for a few years, totally shows how utterly biased RT in the minds of Clinton supporters. As for John Bolton, here's the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/us/p ... aways.html
While he agreed with Mr. Trump on issues like getting out of the nuclear accord with Iran, he found himself repeatedly trying to stop the president from making concessions to other rogue states or making an ill-considered peace deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan while pushing for a more robust use of force against outliers like Iran or Syria. He considered Mr. Trump’s diplomacy to be folly.
Trump killed an Iranian leader on Iraqi soil. Next step up would be war with Iran. Not doing so would be a "folly" according to that article, as it offers ample evidence for what it believes would be showing Trump's foreign policy as bad. Even the brainiacs at the NYT can figure out that bad is the opposite of good, so if not invading Iran is bad, then invading Iran would be good.
