May want to fact-check that 1st sentence🤭
Need to define who are “journalists” in today’s environment before claiming they stress accuracy…or question “what is a fact”😒🤦♀️
I would think it is a statement or declaration that is generally agreed upon within a certain community. Something that is verifiably true without any reliable refutation.
What is a fact? Seriously? Science is just magic with a PhD isn’t it? (That’s sarcasm). Cherry picking facts and omitting key words in headlines are becoming the journalistic equivalent of click-bait, but some people don’t click…they roll with the headline and move along with the wrong idea.
The New Yorker sells advertisements to corporations. That is their number one job. Second is journalism. It's why they didn't publish a single article about how Walgreens stole millions from employees.
No doubt Mark will lose many accounts like Elon after the recent 'CRAP' he expelled with ending 'fact check' opening the way to LIES AND FALSE CLAIMS just before 'babling' in Rogan podcast recently! And when good alternatives rise, both meta and x shall be history soon, I believe!
The New Yorker upholds the highest standards of rigor in our reporting, research, and fact-checking. You can support our mission by upgrading to a subscription. http://nyer.cm/W0X1vrB
your news reporting is great. Unfortunately, a large portion of the rest of your paper has become complete mush ('how to stay safe is you're visiting New Orleans'...'toasters our buyers just love!'). It makes for reading the NYTimes a mostly-unpleasant experience.
Legal ownership is not slippery, so you own your accuracy at your own domain. Where you don't own the domain, like at Twitter or Meta, anything and nothing can be "fact" because you have neither responsibility nor dignity there.
"What's a fact, anyway?" doesn't come across the way you want.
The reality is that the wire services- Reuters, AP, UPI, AFP, etc.- and a lot of foreign news outlets like Al-Jazeera and the BBC do very well in delivering facts. Their style would meet old Fairness Doctrine standards.
It’s really not a good time for navel-gazing, NYer. I’ve been disappointed in your takes on our rolling shitshow for many months now, and this is more of the same.
Media outlets might claim they have a higher standard when claiming fact but the reality is in the way they present these facts by the way they are selected and framed is still heavily influenced by the powerful political and economic forces that truly undermine objectivity.
That most print and broadcast journalists have remained silent on the FACT that international journalists have not been allowed in to Gaza to cover the genocide is a failure of epic proportions.
Comments
Need to define who are “journalists” in today’s environment before claiming they stress accuracy…or question “what is a fact”😒🤦♀️
Integrity has no rules
So journalistic truth should be just that, the truth, without owner influence, blackmail or bribes in shekels.
We know that the billionaire owners of MSM determine what facts will be published
http://nyer.cm/W0X1vrB
You only 'think' you do.
The reality is that the wire services- Reuters, AP, UPI, AFP, etc.- and a lot of foreign news outlets like Al-Jazeera and the BBC do very well in delivering facts. Their style would meet old Fairness Doctrine standards.
It’s neither “slippery” nor illusory, and The (haughty) New Yorker should do better than this.
Fuck me!
Can someone turn the lights out on journalism, please, because its day is done. 🤦🏻
Facts and truths are two different things.
Facts can be proven with SOLID evidence.
Truths, not necessarily.