Even as it tries to do the right thing, @nytimes falls short. Who has a history of misrepresentation that the NYT has avoided specifying?
The Times said its investigation had “found a history of misrepresentations by Mr. Chaudhry”
nytimes.com/2020/12/18/bus…
The Times said its investigation had “found a history of misrepresentations by Mr. Chaudhry”
nytimes.com/2020/12/18/bus…
Really? After months of investigation, the paper found the interviewee is to blame? Apart from the rhetoric, it really merely walked back on its earlier decision to still use the podcast but edit it. Now it’s saying no, we’ll retract it, and everyone is supposed to applaud.
For an brief on what is the real trouble here, follow this thread (
[the problem is much deeper, it’s systemic & there are real-life effects to journalism led by ignorance + arrogance, despite repeated warnings of the damages it had caused.]
[the problem is much deeper, it’s systemic & there are real-life effects to journalism led by ignorance + arrogance, despite repeated warnings of the damages it had caused.]
https://twitter.com/hxhassan/status/1309614658425368581
By the way, that’s one issue all respected watchers in the world agree on. It’s a consensus issue. The only people I’ve seen push back against it are people who are part of her circle & who share the same affiliations. That’s apparently more important to them than proper work.
This, of many, says it all: thedailybeast.com/james-foleys-f…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
