Thread by @PalmerReport

1) I've learned additional information about the New York Times' bizarre attack on Palmer Report this week, and as I suspected, it involves lazy journalism, bad sourcing, and what appears to be a bad faith attempt at retaliation. Details in thread.

2) When the NY Times accused Palmer Report of being a "false content producer," it cited a new study from the German Marshall Fund. But that study doesn't even MENTION Palmer Report in its comprehensive, roughly forty paragraph summary of its own findings: gmfus.org/blog/2020/10/1…

3) So why did the NY Times single us out, when the study's findings didn't even mention us? The author of the NY Times article told me this: "The researchers did cite Palmer Report to me as an example and you can check in with them on that. I believe they used NewsGuard ratings"

4) The study's findings focus on four right wing news outlets. Yet instead of mentioning those four site in her article, the NY Times author mentioned only one of them, and then apparently asked the researchers for the name of a left wing site for the sake of "balance."

5) This is journalistic larceny. Palmer Report wasn't even a focus of the study, yet the New York Times made a point of singling us out at random, just so it couldn't be accused of only criticizing right wing news sites.

6) It gets worse. Two years ago Palmer Report exposed NewsGuard as a fraud whose "ratings" were largely based on second hand information and hearsay. Now, given the chance, NewsGuard and its partner made sure we got beat up in this New York Times story. Apparent retaliation.

7) Here's the amazing part. The New York Times author admitted this to me in writing: "The Palmer Report was cited by the researchers to me as a 'manipulator,' not a false content producer."

8) Palmer Report is neither a "manipulator" nor a "false content producer." But those two things are not the same. "False content producer" is orders of magnitude worse than whatever a "manipulator" is.

9) Yet when NewsGuard and its partner study were given the chance to help the New York Times punish one left-leaning news site, they ignored the alleged left-leaning "false content producers" in their own findings, and singled out Palmer Report instead.

10) Here's how the NY Times reported it: "About two thirds of those likes and comments were of articles published by 10 outlets, which the researchers categorized as 'false content producers' or 'manipulators.' Those news outlets included Palmer Report and The Federalist"

11) This is like publishing a list of "alleged murderers and pickpockets," and then mentioning someone who's only accused of pickpocketing, while leaving out the fact that the person isn't also accused of murder.

12) So the author of the New York Times article did little or no research into the study she was reporting on, decided to "both sides" it instead of reporting what the study actually said, and then allowed someone involved with the study to drag her into a retaliation attempt.

13) The New York Times thought it was okay to kneecap Palmer Report by accusing us of being a "false content producer" and basing it on a study that didn't even say that about us, yet it didn't bother to give me the chance to comment for the story before it was published.

14) This inconsistent with the New York Times' habit of asking people like Donald Trump if they want to provide comment for a negative story about them before it's published. In other words, the rules are different when the New York Times is reporting on the little guy.

15) After the author of the New York Times article admitted to me (strangely enough, on the record and in writing) how badly she had botched her story, I still graciously offered to drop the whole thing if they would simply remove Palmer Report's name from the article.

16) I gave them a deadline for this offer, and they chose to ignore it. It couldn't be more clear that the New York Times simply doesn't feel that it's accountable to the little guy, even when it's been caught reporting devastating false things about the little guy.

17) I won't stop until the New York Times has removed Palmer Report's name from the article in question. Because while the New York Times has done a lot to destroy its reputation, not everyone out there knows that. I won't let them take my reputation down with them.

18) We all know the New York Times does some ugly things behind the scenes. You don't get ahold of Trump's tax returns without dishonestly trading editorial favors in the process. But someone has to do it. We need the New York Times to do what it does on its best day.

19) But there's a downside to this. What favor did the NYT get in return for writing a puff piece about an obscure study that no one even cares about? Why is the NYT now unwilling to correct a major error in that puff piece? Is the NYT afraid of offending the study's authors?

20) The author of the NYT article literally told me that if I had a problem with what had been reported in her article, I should take it up with the study's authors. So again, who's in control of this NYT article? Is it the NYT, or is it the study's authors? What's going on here?

21) If the New York Times is this cavalier when it comes to publishing false claims about me, and this unwilling to correct it after being called out on it, how many New York Times articles each day make the same kinds of false claims? When you think about it, it's really scary.

22) And as so many other major news outlets have unfortunately reminded us this past week, the problem isn't just with the New York Times. The media chases ratings and favors at all cost, then arrogantly convinces itself that it's all editorially justified in the end.

23) It's really sad that Palmer Report is more reliable and honest than most of the major news outlets. With their resources, there's no way that should be the case. I wish it weren't. I'm not even all that good at this. I'm just trying to get it right, and they clearly aren't.