2020 US election - It Came from Washington DC

[robkelk]

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

Citation needed.

and that any other that disagrees with them is a bunch of lies.

Citation needed.

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

Citation needed.

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.

...

As far as when the NYT admitted it, publicly they never have,

This NYT article was first published on June 24, 1990.

So, Rajvik - was your statement a mistake or a lie?

Since your entire argument here is based on an error of fact, I've snipped it. Please try again, paying attention to actual facts this time.

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.

Citation needed. Especially considering that Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of The New York Times from 1935 to 1961, was Jewish. (citation)

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)

“To understand how the Times covered the Holocaust, you have to understand that the Times was paranoid—with justification—about being marginalized as an institution because of its Jewish ownership. Sulzberger knew that the paper would be discredited. That’s why the coverage was undramatic, unpassionate, and framed often in general terms instead of ones that really got to the issue.”
-- Alex Jones, former reporter for the New York Times, quoted in Reporting on the Times and re-quoted by The Daily Beast here.

A bad judgment call is not a lie.

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

Citation needed.

and in fact tried to hide

Citation needed.

the abuse of the civil liberties of various Trump supporters

Citation needed.

are unquestionable.

Citation needed. Especially since I'm questioning them, so they obviously are not "unquestionable" by the dictionary definition of the term.

The Steele Dossier has been proven a pack of lies

Citation needed. And the Nicknamer-in-Chief claiming "fake news" as he does with everything else that does not show sycophantic adoration toward him is not proof.

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

Citation needed.

that the left still refuses to answer to,

Why should they? The GOP are currently in power - ask them about abuses of power on their watch. Assuming that this is an abuse of power, which has yet to be proven.

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.

Citation needed. Names, too.

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.

Is this the same Nicholas Sandman who filed defamation lawsuits against the Washington Post, CNN, and NBCUniversal, but not the NYT? Why not, if his case is so strong?

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.

Citation needed.

Former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn who’s conversations with the Russian Ambassador was completely above board

Citation needed.

and was coerced

Citation needed.

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

I see you didn't bother to give me anything that I asked for, just another regurgitation of the propaganda that you've bought into.

Give me evidence, damnit. EDIT: No, don't bother trying - you've shown time and again that you have no interest in providing evidence for anything you say.