[FRIAM] credibility
∄ uǝlƃ
gepropella at gmail.com
Mon Jun 29 14:23:38 EDT 2020
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
More information about the Friam
mailing list