This thought only moves us farther apart. Dissent, is what happens here to a great degree. Not conservative vs. liberal styled but disagreement that leads to discussion that often leads to agreement or at least agreeing to disagree.
I’m disagreeing here merely with the use of the word, herd. Again, because more than one person agrees or disagrees, that isn’t a herd it’s just numerous people agreeing with each other. Call it a group or like minded but the term herd mentality is diminishing and insulting. In this case, your ‘herd’ appears to be smaller.
I, we have read your affection for the NYT many times and you’ve heard our opposing feelings. I fully understand what it is that impresses you about the rest of the paper, I just find it extremely hard to believe that you are so able to forgive their egregious errors.
And, that reporting and the other articles that you love are what the #1 paper in the world is supposed to do and is expected. The #1 News paper in the world isn’t supposed to fabricate news and stories to achieve an agenda or to grind an axe.
I am not out to change your mind, I already understood your opinion. I’m thinking that you don’t understand ours?
Either way, our opinions are our opinions, disagreement from time to time is inevitable as is agreeing. I disagree that that makes us a herd.
That’s a meme that’s well past its sell-by date. Between the run-up to Iraq and their Clinton reporting, they are not to be trusted. They have gone full-on MSM.
I didn’t trash feature department stuff or science or even the NYT in particular. My opinion isn’t important. The last 20 years of American media stand as testament to what corporations, money, politics and the digital age did intentionally or no to our information services.
Was the subject of long-form stories in Sports Illustrated long ago, for christ’s sake. NYT worshipers tend to be northeastern seaboard tunnel-vision snobs.
I’ve stated here previously that I agree that the reporting on the Clinton email/government investigation matter was the worst kind of sloppy, unforgivable, egregious reporting. It’s indefensible, but I also know that reporting I’ve read lately on Clinton and her campaign has been unbiased, non-judgmental, non-inflammatory and informative, everything reporting should be. Nor do I offer a defense in the Judith Miller episode. Junk went in, junk came out.
The times will endorse her so all the opinions about they have it in for her is shouting at the moon or the kid on the lawn, and I still contend that to disagree with some opinions here is to invite a world of hurt in response and to be called “delusional”, an “idiot”, “tell me you didn’t say that!”, and so on, and that’s how I come to call it a herd mentality.
Not just unnamed and protected, but “very good.” Even though whoever it was totally misled the Times on this story. Does rather raise the question of what the qualifications for a “very good” source are in Baquet’s view, since accuracy and truthfulness aren’t among them.
I can’t see how they can get away with such an obvious hit piece - and there were too many “mistakes” in the story to call it anything but intentional.
There’s more and more space to fill in now, surrounded by paying customers selling cars and dental creme. I can remember a time when the NYT would not even report on this “story”.
I didn’t say that and didn’t think it and don’t. That’s the truth so please accept it.
I think we make different points based sort of on the same subject. I am saying that the NYT has discredited itself and the reasons for that are clear. You are saying that in spite of that they are a very worthwhile entity. After that you say that disagreeing on that puts you in a herd of mindlessness, which I obviously strongly disagree with.
There is a strong conflict with the idea that the Times will support her with this story that they just put out. It’s like, with friends like those-who needs enemies. And trivializing what Judith Miller did by reducing it to junk in and junk out is an attempt to give slack where none is due or to minimalize the damage done. It was much worse than taking out the trash.
I can’t seem to get my point across, which is, I am not in a herd stampeding you or are others because we strongly disagree with the NYT regarding their errors, not the rest of the paper.
So, we have reached the point that I mentioned earlier and so I will end my side with agreeing to disagree.
The Times’ endorsement has nothing like the effect of its twisted news stories run through the rest of the MSM and the television “news” spewers. So the fuck what if they endorse her? Whether they are being hypocritical or disingenuous or merely idiotic, they have already done the damage.
That’s not really fair. I for one, actually like you, and agree with you more often than not.
But when I don’t agree with you, or anybody else, I am not shy about stating why I disagree. I’m an Aries, blame it on the stars.
There have been many times over the years when I am the distinct minority on an issue. The NSA/Snowden stories come to mind quite easily as an excellent example. Shoot, I have even gotten Josh mad enough at me that he has come on the boards to comment.
But…1) He never threatened to shut me up, nor did anyone else here not allow me to dissent (though probably more than a few really wanted to) and 2) Its ok that we vehemently disagree sometimes. We aren’t RedState, we can handle having a big tent and different opinions. And that’s a very, very good thing.
And just FYI, I actually felt like I was in the minority yesterday concerning the Barney Franks story you posted. And I still like Janis Joplin…so there is that.
You can, and I did, opt out of receiving them as a subscriber. They used to have great long-form stories. It’s been a few years now since they reduced them to a trickle, and many since I’ve subscribed; but their coverage of the issues of health, women, and race in sports was superior to the Times’ in both frequency and quality.
Your snide remark is just what I’d expect from a Times worshiper. What a snobbish attitude you’re baring.
Before I go off to have a swim today and cool off my head in the process, I want to correct the impression that I was understating the damage I know Judith Miller caused in her reporting and don’t want to leave the impression I was minimalizing what she did. The bushies got to her through Scooter Libby if I recall correctly, she reported their lies, they pointed to her lies as justification for war escalation, and the damage she caused is what we live with today.
Even my better half tells me (and he knows best) that I’m far too opinionated and need to give it a rest sometimes. This is one of those times. Yes, let’s agree to disagree as people on the same team need to do.
