[FRIAM] credibility

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

And still more progress toward realism in media:

Over 280 Wall Street Journal employees raise credibility concerns about opinion page
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/508373-over-280-wall-street-journal-employees-raise-credibility-concerns-about


On 6/29/20 11:23 AM, ∄ uǝlƃ wrote:
> I'm not sure if that NYT article's been edited since it was originally published or what. It's so brief and conflicts with a screenshot I see on Twitter that I don't know what to think. Maybe it's simply that I'm not subscribed to the NYT anymore? (Of course, I'll never subscribe to WP because Bezos doesn't need my money.)
> 
> https://twitter.com/lawrencehurley/status/1277398891936219139/photo/1
> 
> A little more context, here: https://lawandcrime.com/politics/wapo-editor-squashed-2018-woodward-article-that-wouldve-unmasked-kavanaugh-as-backstabbing-source-report/
> 
> It's interesting that Google returns a lot of right-leaning sources for this story, similar to the Slate Star Codex issue <https://slatestarcodex.com/>. I suppose it's thinly justified as right-leaners' opportunities to attack left-leaners' favorite sources. I enjoy things most when, e.g., orgs like the ACLU band together with, e.g., Reason to argue for privacy. Blatant partisanship annoys me. At least *pretend* to be open-minded! >8^D
> 
> On 6/29/20 9:48 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
>> I'm catching up after rescuing 30 days of FRIAM from the spam folder.
>>
>> In an even more meta-news context, The New York Times revealed yesterday that the Washington Post pulled a Bob Woodward article that would have outed Bret Kavanaugh as an anonymous source, directly contradicting testimony Kavanaugh was giving about what he did and did not do while serving on Ken Starr's staff.  Keeping faith with your sources.   https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/business/media/martin-baron-washington-post.html <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/business/media/martin-baron-washington-post.html?>
> 

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ