Defamation of character demands the wrong to be corrected. Only through education of how NYT operates can the wrong be righted. NYT and the WP, AP and Reuters are the key flag ships of medical propaganda over the last 2 years. The great harm that has been done to the American public over the last 24 months through bias narrative paid for the CDC to the tune of 1 BILLION dollars needs to be exposed.
I agree with not Dr. Malone not wasting his time, but legally he has a case and not fighting back is what the NYT is counting on. He needs to fight back.
I don't think any of us hold out hope that the NYT would actually change its behavior based on a lawsuit. They'd simply pay and then move on undeterred. What they really need is something like the "Elon Musk Moment" that Twitter is currently in angst over. Nevertheless, it would be hugely satisfying to see a large settlement and a slap hard enough to break a wrist by actually going to trial or by settling out of court for defamation - similar to Nick Sandmann and CNN. A message has to be sent, and I can think of no one more deserving of the spoils resulting from such a message - and no group of subscribers more worthy of having their subscription dues used to pay their enemies than the gullible NYT consumers. Will Smith currently holds the title for "the slap heard 'round the world" but I'm hoping for another slap that outdoes it. In this case, it's OK to slap a lady. The Gray Lady. Break her jaw while you're at it. And pull her skirt down. I fail to see how hiring someone to do a hit piece makes the relationship between the NYT and Alba any different in spirit than the relationship between Hillary and Steele. Both were essentially dossiers designed to discredit, facts be damned.
As a typophile, I especially appreciate your subheading :-)
Wow, thank you for this fascinating exposé of manipulation in action. You were appropriately cautious initially, and you can see exactly how she’s trying to butter you up and get into your good graces, making herself appear as if she’s open to hearing and portraying your side accurately.
On another note, I wanted to let you know I just published my public comment regarding the seven remaining proposed COVID tyranny bills in California:
I know you’re working hard to stop these bills and wanted to share this in case it would be of use with your efforts. I include a section after my essay providing instructions on how people can submit their own public comments. Thanks, Dr. Malone!
Kindly allow me write Alba's initial letter as it *should* have been written if she was being truly transparent...
Dear Robert,
I don't really respect your qualifications so I will leap immediately to the presumption that we should be on a first name basis rather than initiating this conversation with a more formal and respectful "Dr. Malone" in the salutation. It's not like you're an actual medical doctor. Instead, I'll save those salutations for real doctors. You know - people like Dr. Jill Biden.
In many ways, I'm not particularly professional and I thus assume others are equally sloppy and presumptuous. For instance, I tend to talk like a teenager instead of a professional with a command of the language you'd reasonably expect from someone representing the "paper of record". To wit, my use of phrases like "would you be up for" and "anti-vaxx". However, please understand that you aren't allowed to seriously question my credentials and motives - I'm only allowed to question yours. If I unilaterally decide that someone with hesitations about this particular vaccine is equivalent to - and as unhinged as - someone that questions the efficacy of any and all vaccines, that is my prerogative and mine alone. I'm free to change the meaning of words and historically accepted definitions at-will when it suits my purpose and feeds the desired narrative.
Now that we've established these fair and impartial rules of engagement, allow me to proceed with some additional disclosures.
I have read and listened to portions of your recent public statements - but make no mistake: this is not for the purpose of properly characterizing you and your beliefs or to truly understand both sides of the issue and thoughtfully and factually present them with appropriate nuance and context. No, the real purpose is instead to mock and denigrate you, safely ensconced in the false assurance that I am a Journalist® and therefore untouchable via the First Amendment. The truth is, the story's ending has already been written - like the plot of a novel before I actually pen the first words - and my role now is simply to fill in the color commentary and details that will make this more personal and engaging, lending a patina of authenticity. Since I'm not constrained by facts, this will indeed be much like a novel, but I can always add a one-liner in the foreword that says "inspired by true events" to try and lend more gravitas to what otherwise is whole cloth. I hope you'll invite me into your house so I can look into the eyes of the person I'm about to falsely convict and crucify. Other than that, I'm a really good person.
I'm going to conclude now with additional false sincerity because I don't wish you well. In fact, I hope to make a mockery of your career, your credentials, your motivations, and your contributions. But please remember that you can trust me because I'm sincere in my convictions and reasonably articulate - and we all know that history's despots possessed neither of those attributes.
I'd gladly send it, but her website provides no contact information that I can find. She takes great pains to provide a page with encryption, so you can correspond privately and securely, but doesn't bother to give you the option to contact her. I think it falls into the "don't call me - I'll call you" category.
Once she contacts a "target", she could save time by creating a private page containing the following verbiage:
"Hi - I'm a mercenary reporter, formerly with the NYT, now with Bloomberg, but available to the highest bidder as long as suitable progressive alignment exists. I'm going to write a story about you over which you will have no control. Indeed, you will have no opportunity to edit the content, correct mistakes, or influence the tone or conclusions of the article because "integrity". Although the spirit of independent reporting that is not beholden to the subject of the article is a necessary ingredient for good journalism, you need to know that my intentions are not noble and are reliably better characterized as decoys and head-fakes that allow me to create my trademark "exposés". I will misappropriate the protections afforded to me as a Journalist® to insulate myself from any meaningful degree of accountability rather than to enhance my accountability and trustworthiness. With this in mind, you should properly understand that my 'invitation' to participate in an interview is merely a form of blackmail where I give the impression that your input matters and could actually influence the content in a positive manner and you in turn naively rely on my humanity to conduct myself honorably and transparently. I live in Brooklyn with my two cats and also have a bridge for sale. I have no children because I'm still 'finding myself' and want to reduce my carbon footprint, but may reconsider this posture sometime in my fifth decade when I am lonely and embittered. At that point, I will convince myself resolutely that having a child is an entitlement and thus in-vitro is likely somewhere in my future. I will probably somewhere also lobby that such treatment should be covered by universal healthcare."
Frankly, these invitations would be better sent in ransom note format using scissors and paste. The difference is that this particular ransom note is a lie - the hostage (in this case, the truth) is already dead and there is no hope of resurrection.
it's amazing how many people still think the NYTs is an unbiased, truthful newspaper. Even when shown the evidence (ie screenshots of corrected articles, demonstration of how international media will cover important topics like the Biden laptop but the NYTs doesn't, so many examples) they will fight to the end to say its a trustworthy source and you are a horrible person for not believing them. They are willfully ignorant, and I have no sympathy for them.
Self-importance married to ideology=deception and disaster. They sit on high, upon their throne, and act as jury, judge and executioner...and the devil smiles.
I remember when I was a child and my parents were watching the news you could feel confident that the newscasters were not bias they told the news as it was happening. The news today is so frustrating. You don’t know what is truth and what is a lie.
I don’t watch the news channels anymore. You can just feel the lies they are spinning.
There wasn’t the censorship that is going on now. It is unbelievable. We have the right for freedom of speech not censored speech. It is in the Bill of Rights for this very reason. Thankfully there are people speaking out.
Elsewhere I composed a rhyme about just that. I don't think it's half-bad; my swollen ego concurs. 😁
Long ago, TV news was no reason to doubt,
With correspondents like Sander Vanocur,
But watch today? I sooner gouge mine eyes out,
With a flaming red hot poker.
More seriously, here are my thoughts on today's article....
[Disclaimer: While I've never worked in journalism, I am well educated, to include an MA in a Literature specialization. As such, I have at least passing familiarity with the different types of writing.]
While neutrality and objectivity are ideals at times (even not in the present NYT), there are limits to what can be achieved.
In the first place, every human being has biases, whether conscious or unconscious. It is impossible, I believe, to be truly unbiased. At best, one can admit the existence of [likely] biases and try to work around them when they rear their ugly heads.
Biases may take many forms. The most obvious, stated in this article are the ideological. We now expect the NYT, for example, to be hard Left, Progressive, whatever. But there are always other pressures at play. For example, the owner of a paper expects articles to set a certain tone.
True autonomy for writers rarely exists. Writers and editors know that. Therefore certain topics are off-limits, those allowed are only framed in certain ways, and anyone who strays to far from explicit or implicit rules risks job loss or even being blacklisted from a career. "Censorship" in so many words, whether self-imposed or from above, stated or unstated. Also, the paper and its employees must be careful of how they refer to various powerful individuals, corporations, governments and others. Advertisers must be placated too: An expose unflattering to a big advertiser of course risks loss of that account. These entities prefer to be treated a certain way. Many details are never to be discussed. Some groups prefer no publicity at all (think organized crime, intelligence agencies, and similar.) More than one journalist has turned up dead, likely because he was investigating something a little too hot.
In the second place, objectivity too is a difficult bird to snare. All but the simplest issues typically have many ways they can be viewed. This is the moral of the famous fable of the blind men encountering an elephant and attempting to identify it.
Ideally a journalist would report the "Truth." But, as the blind men found out, there are bounds to what can be described. For example, consider a historian wishing to discuss even one historic battle. How could he possibly fully describe all the factors, the environment, the details? Thousands of human actors, millions of small events, some documented but most leaving no records? It's an impossible task. Reality is simply too complicated to describe, which is to say, to produce a model of. The best one can do is produce an incomplete description, an approximation.
To summarize: I will agree that many papers (media) have become less "fact" and more "opinion." What once was called "news" now is much more often partisan, openly advocating one point of view to the exclusion and (usually) not mentioning of any other. Oftentimes, their bias is painfully obvious. For example, it's taboo to report the race of criminal suspects. It's amusing to watch reporters tie themselves in knots, anything to avoid saying that taboo data. In written accounts, the perpetrator was a youth or a teen. I have experienced a live TV news bulletin alerting the public to a violent felon where many details were given, e.g. the license plate of a stolen car, everything but a description of the man himself! The viewers were expected to assume what could not be overly stated. More relevant to our thing in this Substack, we are well aware that many topics related to Covid-19 treatment, the "vaccines," and such are only brought up certain ways or better yet, not broached at all, in legacy media.
Did a big country invade a smaller one? Clearly the big country is at fault and all narrative is shaped accordingly. Does a mentally ill man, believing himself a woman, want to participate on a female swim team? It's his right! Did the son of a powerful politician lose a laptop that turns out to have very incriminating data on it? The FBI lost it? But no media wants to discuss what data it might contain? It was Russian disinformation? Really?
Those are but a few examples of the media brushing off various issues -- if they dare to mention them at all. You will note they are almost always presented with a very narrow perspective. Other points of view not allowed.
All is not lost. Alternative media exists (like what you now read.) It's tolerable to read biased sources, even the NYT if one keeps aware that one is reading at best half-truths, at worst, lies. Defenses? Try and read multiple points of view. Following a war? Try and read what both sides are claiming. They're both likely lies, but they are probably different lies. Learn the skills of skepticism and critical inquiry, logic and the value of general education and knowledge.
It's bad enough that our would-be sources of information often lie to us, be it by complete fibs or half-truths. But to some extent the consumer of news (that's us!) is equally to blame. We all have our preferences and that includes what filters our news comes through. (Remember those biases I mentioned earlier?)
To use an example, I very much enjoyed Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s "The Real Anthony Fauci." It seems a very well researched and in-depth indictment of not just Dr. Fauci, but the pharmaceutical, research, regulatory and other agencies. I don't have time to fact-check all his claims,, but he cites hundreds of sources. Let us assume for present argument, that every single claim the author makes in his book is true. Even so, isn't it still a case of what I mentioned above, about the ultimate folly of trying to provide an unbiased, complete history? Of course it is. Let's look at just a few of the limitations. RFK Jr. is partisan. He makes no secret that he is skeptical of vaccines and many other things. As such we would expect his book to be hostile to vaccines etc. But what's missing? A lot. Isn't it likely that Dr. Fauci, other regulatory employees, and even Big Pharma are not 100% evil actors? Isn't it possible, even likely that the vast majority of drugs and medical treatments are actually a net good? Isn't it still the likely case that our medical system overall, actually does crank out many health and life enhancing goods and services? But to cite those would be a huge labor and ultimately be irrelevant to the author's case. But they'd be totally relevant to a person trying to get a fairer, more objective view of the overall situation, wouldn't it? To summarize my above rambling: It is quite possible that greed and corruption exist in the medical/regulatory field, but that does not automatically mean that on the whole, its products and services are actually quite safe and effective.
It's an imperfect world. Better stated: the world is what it is. Man's measurement, perception of it is of necessity incomplete and thus inaccurate. Always has been. No one can guarantee you the "truth," but you can approach it if you work at it.
I must add to my former reply. My husband ran for Prosecuting Attorney in 2012. The lies and the slanted spin on the reporting done by our local paper was so disturbing. We decided to never do a phone response to the news paper again. We would write our response therefore no misinterpreted info. I truly believe he lost the election because of the news paper articles and the lies by his opponent along with the opponents unlimited money to spend on his campaign. We learned through that experience that we are not politicians . We speak truth and we can’t be dishonest with the public. We learned that all the politicians had big egos and were just out for themselves and would go to any length to get what they set out to do. Terrible experience.
NY Times etc are not “The Left.” As Alexander stated on The Duran Tues during best nuanced Ukraine coverage “the old left would be rolling over in their graves.”
Character Assassination efforts by wordsmiths is an art form. NYT is a depository of bias wordsmiths whose livelihood depend on their ability to destroy the truth for special interests.
They did a hit piece several years ago on a Harvard physician who understands the true value of Vitamin D for good health. Covid diagnosis should include a blood test for Vitamin D deficiency.
If blood value is over 50 ng's the risk of dying from the virus is minimal. Oops..negates the need for a mRNA injection!
NYT has a history of being a tool for propaganda. One of the older Mark Levin shows he gave a history of the NYTs. NYT hid or did not publish that their was a holocaust in Europe under the 3rd Reich. Americans did not know what was happening in Europe.
Suggest going to the link for the book to read the summary about the book.
NYT has only gotten worse over the years. Woke nuts work there who are not journalists, they are activists, Social Media Influencers, frauds and liars.
Dr. Phil once said: "giving someone the benefit of the doubt, is a higher form of insanity." Times have changed and people have changed.
Dr. Malone, I totally agree it's a waste of your time. The NYT has always been a lie. As I have mentioned previously (your 1st post) my Father never read it (because he knew what it was) and we lived in Northern NJ where many people were under its spell.
I think the thing that stands out most to me about this first post is that you were generous, and Jill was intuitive. I'm sure she has been gracious enough not to have said, "I told you so!" 😊
Dr. Malone,
Please Do Not waste your time with NYT.
1. Your audience, almost entirely objective and well-informed on the subject, has no use for NYT interviews/articles.
2. The loyal NYT readers have already drank multiple refills of Kool Aid re Vax efficacy, and their fact-finding receptors are tuned out.
Just my two cents worth.
Defamation of character demands the wrong to be corrected. Only through education of how NYT operates can the wrong be righted. NYT and the WP, AP and Reuters are the key flag ships of medical propaganda over the last 2 years. The great harm that has been done to the American public over the last 24 months through bias narrative paid for the CDC to the tune of 1 BILLION dollars needs to be exposed.
I agree with not Dr. Malone not wasting his time, but legally he has a case and not fighting back is what the NYT is counting on. He needs to fight back.
I don't think any of us hold out hope that the NYT would actually change its behavior based on a lawsuit. They'd simply pay and then move on undeterred. What they really need is something like the "Elon Musk Moment" that Twitter is currently in angst over. Nevertheless, it would be hugely satisfying to see a large settlement and a slap hard enough to break a wrist by actually going to trial or by settling out of court for defamation - similar to Nick Sandmann and CNN. A message has to be sent, and I can think of no one more deserving of the spoils resulting from such a message - and no group of subscribers more worthy of having their subscription dues used to pay their enemies than the gullible NYT consumers. Will Smith currently holds the title for "the slap heard 'round the world" but I'm hoping for another slap that outdoes it. In this case, it's OK to slap a lady. The Gray Lady. Break her jaw while you're at it. And pull her skirt down. I fail to see how hiring someone to do a hit piece makes the relationship between the NYT and Alba any different in spirit than the relationship between Hillary and Steele. Both were essentially dossiers designed to discredit, facts be damned.
As a typophile, I especially appreciate your subheading :-)
Wow, thank you for this fascinating exposé of manipulation in action. You were appropriately cautious initially, and you can see exactly how she’s trying to butter you up and get into your good graces, making herself appear as if she’s open to hearing and portraying your side accurately.
On another note, I wanted to let you know I just published my public comment regarding the seven remaining proposed COVID tyranny bills in California:
• “Letter to the California Legislature” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-the-california-legislature)
I know you’re working hard to stop these bills and wanted to share this in case it would be of use with your efforts. I include a section after my essay providing instructions on how people can submit their own public comments. Thanks, Dr. Malone!
thank you. posted.
Wonderful and thanks so much, Dr. Malone!
BTW, did you see this exciting news:
“California Delays Coronavirus Vaccine Mandate for Schools”
https://www.kcra.com/article/california-delays-coronavirus-vaccine-mandate-schools/39730623
They are feeling the pressure, so we mustn’t let up!! 🙌
Kindly allow me write Alba's initial letter as it *should* have been written if she was being truly transparent...
Dear Robert,
I don't really respect your qualifications so I will leap immediately to the presumption that we should be on a first name basis rather than initiating this conversation with a more formal and respectful "Dr. Malone" in the salutation. It's not like you're an actual medical doctor. Instead, I'll save those salutations for real doctors. You know - people like Dr. Jill Biden.
In many ways, I'm not particularly professional and I thus assume others are equally sloppy and presumptuous. For instance, I tend to talk like a teenager instead of a professional with a command of the language you'd reasonably expect from someone representing the "paper of record". To wit, my use of phrases like "would you be up for" and "anti-vaxx". However, please understand that you aren't allowed to seriously question my credentials and motives - I'm only allowed to question yours. If I unilaterally decide that someone with hesitations about this particular vaccine is equivalent to - and as unhinged as - someone that questions the efficacy of any and all vaccines, that is my prerogative and mine alone. I'm free to change the meaning of words and historically accepted definitions at-will when it suits my purpose and feeds the desired narrative.
Now that we've established these fair and impartial rules of engagement, allow me to proceed with some additional disclosures.
I have read and listened to portions of your recent public statements - but make no mistake: this is not for the purpose of properly characterizing you and your beliefs or to truly understand both sides of the issue and thoughtfully and factually present them with appropriate nuance and context. No, the real purpose is instead to mock and denigrate you, safely ensconced in the false assurance that I am a Journalist® and therefore untouchable via the First Amendment. The truth is, the story's ending has already been written - like the plot of a novel before I actually pen the first words - and my role now is simply to fill in the color commentary and details that will make this more personal and engaging, lending a patina of authenticity. Since I'm not constrained by facts, this will indeed be much like a novel, but I can always add a one-liner in the foreword that says "inspired by true events" to try and lend more gravitas to what otherwise is whole cloth. I hope you'll invite me into your house so I can look into the eyes of the person I'm about to falsely convict and crucify. Other than that, I'm a really good person.
I'm going to conclude now with additional false sincerity because I don't wish you well. In fact, I hope to make a mockery of your career, your credentials, your motivations, and your contributions. But please remember that you can trust me because I'm sincere in my convictions and reasonably articulate - and we all know that history's despots possessed neither of those attributes.
"All the best" (wink, wink),
Davey Alba
Brilliant. Please send this to Davey as I doubt she'll see it here.
Great response! I agree, send it out to Davey!
I'd gladly send it, but her website provides no contact information that I can find. She takes great pains to provide a page with encryption, so you can correspond privately and securely, but doesn't bother to give you the option to contact her. I think it falls into the "don't call me - I'll call you" category.
Once she contacts a "target", she could save time by creating a private page containing the following verbiage:
"Hi - I'm a mercenary reporter, formerly with the NYT, now with Bloomberg, but available to the highest bidder as long as suitable progressive alignment exists. I'm going to write a story about you over which you will have no control. Indeed, you will have no opportunity to edit the content, correct mistakes, or influence the tone or conclusions of the article because "integrity". Although the spirit of independent reporting that is not beholden to the subject of the article is a necessary ingredient for good journalism, you need to know that my intentions are not noble and are reliably better characterized as decoys and head-fakes that allow me to create my trademark "exposés". I will misappropriate the protections afforded to me as a Journalist® to insulate myself from any meaningful degree of accountability rather than to enhance my accountability and trustworthiness. With this in mind, you should properly understand that my 'invitation' to participate in an interview is merely a form of blackmail where I give the impression that your input matters and could actually influence the content in a positive manner and you in turn naively rely on my humanity to conduct myself honorably and transparently. I live in Brooklyn with my two cats and also have a bridge for sale. I have no children because I'm still 'finding myself' and want to reduce my carbon footprint, but may reconsider this posture sometime in my fifth decade when I am lonely and embittered. At that point, I will convince myself resolutely that having a child is an entitlement and thus in-vitro is likely somewhere in my future. I will probably somewhere also lobby that such treatment should be covered by universal healthcare."
Frankly, these invitations would be better sent in ransom note format using scissors and paste. The difference is that this particular ransom note is a lie - the hostage (in this case, the truth) is already dead and there is no hope of resurrection.
We can only hope that Dr. Malone can sue the pants off them! He's working on it...
P.S. there is a t-shirt out there with your Malo periculosam etc.
it's amazing how many people still think the NYTs is an unbiased, truthful newspaper. Even when shown the evidence (ie screenshots of corrected articles, demonstration of how international media will cover important topics like the Biden laptop but the NYTs doesn't, so many examples) they will fight to the end to say its a trustworthy source and you are a horrible person for not believing them. They are willfully ignorant, and I have no sympathy for them.
Self-importance married to ideology=deception and disaster. They sit on high, upon their throne, and act as jury, judge and executioner...and the devil smiles.
Which, to some extent, explains why Alex Berenson lost his luster with me after a few months of my infatuation. 🙂
I remember when I was a child and my parents were watching the news you could feel confident that the newscasters were not bias they told the news as it was happening. The news today is so frustrating. You don’t know what is truth and what is a lie.
I don’t watch the news channels anymore. You can just feel the lies they are spinning.
I am thinking that it’s always been a spin, and we’re just now figuring it out.
There wasn’t the censorship that is going on now. It is unbelievable. We have the right for freedom of speech not censored speech. It is in the Bill of Rights for this very reason. Thankfully there are people speaking out.
Don’t be so sure. Operation Mockingbird started in the 1950’s and it’s never really stopped.
True.
Elsewhere I composed a rhyme about just that. I don't think it's half-bad; my swollen ego concurs. 😁
Long ago, TV news was no reason to doubt,
With correspondents like Sander Vanocur,
But watch today? I sooner gouge mine eyes out,
With a flaming red hot poker.
More seriously, here are my thoughts on today's article....
[Disclaimer: While I've never worked in journalism, I am well educated, to include an MA in a Literature specialization. As such, I have at least passing familiarity with the different types of writing.]
While neutrality and objectivity are ideals at times (even not in the present NYT), there are limits to what can be achieved.
In the first place, every human being has biases, whether conscious or unconscious. It is impossible, I believe, to be truly unbiased. At best, one can admit the existence of [likely] biases and try to work around them when they rear their ugly heads.
Biases may take many forms. The most obvious, stated in this article are the ideological. We now expect the NYT, for example, to be hard Left, Progressive, whatever. But there are always other pressures at play. For example, the owner of a paper expects articles to set a certain tone.
True autonomy for writers rarely exists. Writers and editors know that. Therefore certain topics are off-limits, those allowed are only framed in certain ways, and anyone who strays to far from explicit or implicit rules risks job loss or even being blacklisted from a career. "Censorship" in so many words, whether self-imposed or from above, stated or unstated. Also, the paper and its employees must be careful of how they refer to various powerful individuals, corporations, governments and others. Advertisers must be placated too: An expose unflattering to a big advertiser of course risks loss of that account. These entities prefer to be treated a certain way. Many details are never to be discussed. Some groups prefer no publicity at all (think organized crime, intelligence agencies, and similar.) More than one journalist has turned up dead, likely because he was investigating something a little too hot.
In the second place, objectivity too is a difficult bird to snare. All but the simplest issues typically have many ways they can be viewed. This is the moral of the famous fable of the blind men encountering an elephant and attempting to identify it.
Ideally a journalist would report the "Truth." But, as the blind men found out, there are bounds to what can be described. For example, consider a historian wishing to discuss even one historic battle. How could he possibly fully describe all the factors, the environment, the details? Thousands of human actors, millions of small events, some documented but most leaving no records? It's an impossible task. Reality is simply too complicated to describe, which is to say, to produce a model of. The best one can do is produce an incomplete description, an approximation.
To summarize: I will agree that many papers (media) have become less "fact" and more "opinion." What once was called "news" now is much more often partisan, openly advocating one point of view to the exclusion and (usually) not mentioning of any other. Oftentimes, their bias is painfully obvious. For example, it's taboo to report the race of criminal suspects. It's amusing to watch reporters tie themselves in knots, anything to avoid saying that taboo data. In written accounts, the perpetrator was a youth or a teen. I have experienced a live TV news bulletin alerting the public to a violent felon where many details were given, e.g. the license plate of a stolen car, everything but a description of the man himself! The viewers were expected to assume what could not be overly stated. More relevant to our thing in this Substack, we are well aware that many topics related to Covid-19 treatment, the "vaccines," and such are only brought up certain ways or better yet, not broached at all, in legacy media.
Did a big country invade a smaller one? Clearly the big country is at fault and all narrative is shaped accordingly. Does a mentally ill man, believing himself a woman, want to participate on a female swim team? It's his right! Did the son of a powerful politician lose a laptop that turns out to have very incriminating data on it? The FBI lost it? But no media wants to discuss what data it might contain? It was Russian disinformation? Really?
Those are but a few examples of the media brushing off various issues -- if they dare to mention them at all. You will note they are almost always presented with a very narrow perspective. Other points of view not allowed.
All is not lost. Alternative media exists (like what you now read.) It's tolerable to read biased sources, even the NYT if one keeps aware that one is reading at best half-truths, at worst, lies. Defenses? Try and read multiple points of view. Following a war? Try and read what both sides are claiming. They're both likely lies, but they are probably different lies. Learn the skills of skepticism and critical inquiry, logic and the value of general education and knowledge.
It's bad enough that our would-be sources of information often lie to us, be it by complete fibs or half-truths. But to some extent the consumer of news (that's us!) is equally to blame. We all have our preferences and that includes what filters our news comes through. (Remember those biases I mentioned earlier?)
To use an example, I very much enjoyed Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s "The Real Anthony Fauci." It seems a very well researched and in-depth indictment of not just Dr. Fauci, but the pharmaceutical, research, regulatory and other agencies. I don't have time to fact-check all his claims,, but he cites hundreds of sources. Let us assume for present argument, that every single claim the author makes in his book is true. Even so, isn't it still a case of what I mentioned above, about the ultimate folly of trying to provide an unbiased, complete history? Of course it is. Let's look at just a few of the limitations. RFK Jr. is partisan. He makes no secret that he is skeptical of vaccines and many other things. As such we would expect his book to be hostile to vaccines etc. But what's missing? A lot. Isn't it likely that Dr. Fauci, other regulatory employees, and even Big Pharma are not 100% evil actors? Isn't it possible, even likely that the vast majority of drugs and medical treatments are actually a net good? Isn't it still the likely case that our medical system overall, actually does crank out many health and life enhancing goods and services? But to cite those would be a huge labor and ultimately be irrelevant to the author's case. But they'd be totally relevant to a person trying to get a fairer, more objective view of the overall situation, wouldn't it? To summarize my above rambling: It is quite possible that greed and corruption exist in the medical/regulatory field, but that does not automatically mean that on the whole, its products and services are actually quite safe and effective.
It's an imperfect world. Better stated: the world is what it is. Man's measurement, perception of it is of necessity incomplete and thus inaccurate. Always has been. No one can guarantee you the "truth," but you can approach it if you work at it.
I must add to my former reply. My husband ran for Prosecuting Attorney in 2012. The lies and the slanted spin on the reporting done by our local paper was so disturbing. We decided to never do a phone response to the news paper again. We would write our response therefore no misinterpreted info. I truly believe he lost the election because of the news paper articles and the lies by his opponent along with the opponents unlimited money to spend on his campaign. We learned through that experience that we are not politicians . We speak truth and we can’t be dishonest with the public. We learned that all the politicians had big egos and were just out for themselves and would go to any length to get what they set out to do. Terrible experience.
NY Times etc are not “The Left.” As Alexander stated on The Duran Tues during best nuanced Ukraine coverage “the old left would be rolling over in their graves.”
I recognize neither party which is a problem
It’s corporate culture. Often see similar, for example, in The Epoch Times
Deception comes in many forms.
Character Assassination efforts by wordsmiths is an art form. NYT is a depository of bias wordsmiths whose livelihood depend on their ability to destroy the truth for special interests.
They did a hit piece several years ago on a Harvard physician who understands the true value of Vitamin D for good health. Covid diagnosis should include a blood test for Vitamin D deficiency.
If blood value is over 50 ng's the risk of dying from the virus is minimal. Oops..negates the need for a mRNA injection!
Their bible is the Disinformation Handbook which is explained at: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/disinformation-playbook?msclkid=4c158179bc0911ec96b5b299f12477e5
Journalism is an action, not (just) a profession. The real journalists now are on Substack and on the ground filming police stops with camera phones.
NYT has a history of being a tool for propaganda. One of the older Mark Levin shows he gave a history of the NYTs. NYT hid or did not publish that their was a holocaust in Europe under the 3rd Reich. Americans did not know what was happening in Europe.
NYT Man in Moscow: "Stalins Apologist: Walter Duranty: the NYT Man in Moscow" book by SJ Taylor. Duranty praised the Bolshevik Revolution and kept hid the genocide of Ukranians. https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Apologist-Walter-Duranty-Timess/dp/0195057007
Suggest going to the link for the book to read the summary about the book.
NYT has only gotten worse over the years. Woke nuts work there who are not journalists, they are activists, Social Media Influencers, frauds and liars.
Dr. Phil once said: "giving someone the benefit of the doubt, is a higher form of insanity." Times have changed and people have changed.
Dr. Malone, I totally agree it's a waste of your time. The NYT has always been a lie. As I have mentioned previously (your 1st post) my Father never read it (because he knew what it was) and we lived in Northern NJ where many people were under its spell.
Two thoughts came to mind.
“When you lie down with junkyard dogs, you wake up with flees.” (Not sure)
“These are sick people.” (Donald J. Trump)
I think the thing that stands out most to me about this first post is that you were generous, and Jill was intuitive. I'm sure she has been gracious enough not to have said, "I told you so!" 😊
"The Unfreedom of the Press: by Mark Levin will open many eyes to the propaganda machines.