2020 US election - It Came from Washington DC

[Rajvik]

Extremely relevant for those two events, when did the NYT lie about those two events, and when did they stop?

 
Hazard there is a part of me that wants to smack you simply for voicing this question, but I’ll put it off as your personal ignorance of the subject matter. The New York Times has been in business since 1851 and has, since its inception claimed to be THE Paper of Record and that any other that disagrees with them is a bunch of lies. Because of the company’s age it is easily something that can be researched if you have access to its physical archives, which means going to New York. That said there have been, over the years, several authors who have picked a subject and researched what the Times has written about it, where in their paper they placed those articles, and the actual history involved in the writing of those articles. When they actively started editing their work to push a liberal/socialist agenda I couldn’t tell you, I don’t subscribe, but I can tell you that the best documented case of their bias started with the Russian Revolution (1917) and the “Journalist” Walter Duranty who arrived in Moscow to be the Times’ correspondent there in 1921.
 
Starting with the Ukrainian Genocide/Famine 1932/1933 while the rest of the world’s newspapers were telling the world of the death that the Soviet Union was causing by taking the Ukrainian grain harvest by force and either executing or exiling any who objected, Duranty told the Times readers that the Russians were “Hungry, not starving”. The Soviet Union’s story was basically that there were some farmers who were refusing to hand over the required and contracted grain quota and in protest were executing/wasting their cattle. The truth was that the Soviets were taking said grain at gunpoint, and the rural population, looking at the usual hard Russian winter were butchering the cattle that they new couldn’t be kept fed into the winter in hopes that at least for a while they would be able to survive on the meat. It didn’t work as they were not allowed to keep the meat either.
 
Duranty received a Pulitzer prize for this among other articles that were all practically parroting the Stalinist line of “All is well in the Soviet Union; we are a country of great equality.” As far as when the NYT admitted it, publicly they never have, going so far as to each time the board that hands out the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism considers rescinding the award for Duranty’s work, the Times objects and the Editor in Chief at the time wrote as follows:

First, such an action might evoke the Stalinist practice to airbrush purged figures out of official records and Histories

And

The board would be setting a precedent for revisiting its judgements over many decades

In short, the Times still will not deny or rescind Duranty’s work and I would suggest reading the entirety of the linked Wikipedia Article on the person and preferably several of the links which you will hopefully find enlightening.
 
Now, as to their coverage of the Holocaust, which do you think should be a front page article between 1938 and 1944, the emptying of the Warsaw Ghetto, or an informational on how to correct your ration card for gas and tires if it does not have the correct information on it? The latter was a front-page article in the Times while news of the industrialized gassing of European Jews was relegated to at best page 4 of the paper. It was not until US servicemen were returning home on war bond tours from the European theater that they actually started to present the story of the Holocaust and the systematic extermination of the European Jews. Why, you might ask, and the answer is considered a bit of a grey area even now. Arthur Sulzburger who was the owner and Editor in Chief, had a distinct disagreement with the leaders of both the American and European Jewish communities including a distinct dislike of Zionism. The fact that other newspapers around the country also didn’t give the slaughter of people the coverage it deserved until almost the end of the war does not absolve any of them, but it is the Times that has specifically been called into question here and the fact that this is simply the tip of the proverbial iceberg where their lies and deceits are concerned is why I address them.

references

“The Abandonment of the Jews” Dr. David S. Wyman 1984
“Beyond Belief” Deborah E. Lipstadt (professor, Emory University)
“Buried by the Times” Laurel Leff (Professor, Northeastern University)

Rob, I imagine you would prefer something more recent than what you probably consider ancient history. The Times coverage of the “Russian Collusion” story and the lies, innuendo and blatant dishonesty where the facts were that even Robert Mueller and his group of Democrat supporters couldn’t find the least little hint of any illegal action on the part of the president and in fact tried to hide the abuse of the civil liberties of various Trump supporters are unquestionable. The Steele Dossier has been proven a pack of lies and yet the Times along with CNN and MSNBC STILL reference it as if it were fact. The fact that said Dossier was used to gain a FISA warrant on Carter Page, and then used to spy on the Trump Campaign and transition team is an abuse of power that the left still refuses to answer to, and I’m sorry to say, but certain members of the Justice Department seem to be sitting on awaiting the outcome of the current election to see if they are going to have to publicly embarrass the Obama Administration. Other times in recent history (ie the last 3-4 years) where the NYT has brazenly lied include:
Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandman who DIDN’T actually do anything just smile and be in a 30 second clip in a MAGA hat while a protestor got in HIS face. The protester, I might add, who it was found when you watched the ENTIRE scene at the Washington Mall, lied about the whole damn thing.
Former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn who’s conversations with the Russian Ambassador was completely above board and was coerced into confessing, something that is likely to come under investigation itself if it isn’t already.
 
And I think I’ll just leave it at that. My apologies for taking so long to respond