Thread by @SethAbramson

Jesus. nytimes.com/2021/09/25/us/…

(NOTE) PROOF has already published documentary evidence—in the form of the so-called "Eddie Block Video"—*confirming* that the Proud Boys had a prior plan to storm the Capitol. They are on video *confessing* it. This New York Times sub-hed is preposterous and bizarrely credulous.

PS/ After yesterday, we know that the NYT’s top political reporter follows the PROOF project. At what point does the NYT *consistently* ignoring PROOF reporting become a manifest flaw in its January 6 coverage? Is spite a justification for crappy, incomplete coverage of sedition?

PS2/ Below is a *very* preliminary list of individuals from the NYT who follow the PROOF project. It's about 65% complete.

So America's paper of record can't say it isn't aware of the comprehensive 1/6 reporting at PROOF. What justifies it *consistently* ignoring that reporting?

PS3/ The Proud Boys plotted to storm the Capitol. No major media outlet can credulously report otherwise. A journalistic institution would be abiding by professional ethics in noting that the Proud Boys are trying to spread *disinformation* about their intentions, but that's it.

PS4/ Instead, the NYT credulously cites the claims of a *Proud Boy*—a domestic terrorist with no credibility—in a sub-headline. Is this where Maggie Haberman gets her understanding of journalism from? From this sort of "if someone said it, we must act as a steno for it" nonsense?

PS5/ What this means is that a domestic terrorist can get his self-aggrandizing, self-exculpating lies into a *sub-hed* in the NYT, but PROOF can't get its reporting on a *videotaped confession from a Proud Boy* into the NYT. And Maggie Haberman thinks the problem is PROOF? What?

PS6/ When independent journalists say major media is broken, this is what we mean. News consumers now have a choice between simultaneously arrogant and feckless stenography and accurate reporting from people who simply don't happen to work for a corporation.

*That's* the choice.