Letters regarding disinformation!

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2024

What's up with the New York Times? Misinformation has been playing a very large role in our modern-day politics.

(Sometimes, the misinformation qualifies as disinformation. It isn't always easy to know if that has occurred.)

At any rate, the promulgation of misinformation has driven vast amounts of modern-day politics. This morning, the New York Times published a set of four letters under this headline:

The Debate Over Free Speech, Disinformation and Censorship

To appearances, all four letters were written in response to a front-page report from Sunday, March 17. The first letter specifically cites that report, which actually topped that day's front page in New York Times print editions. 

Today, the Times has published four letters about that March 17 report. Here's how today's first letter appears:

To the Editor:

Re “Trump Allies Are Winning War Over Disinformation” (front page, March 17):

The U.S. Supreme Court put limits on free speech, saying you can’t falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Fundamental to our democracy is an informed electorate. Yet our courts seem to be OK with a flood of lies and propaganda masquerading as news and aimed at burning down our democracy.

This should concern every American for several reasons, including the surge of social media sites that contain much misinformation, the closure of many local newspapers, a decline in the number of real journalists, and an increase in the amount of misinformation spread by adversaries like Russia and China in an attempt to affect the outcome of our elections.

R— D— / Richmond Hill, Ga.

Strange! We didn't recall seeing that front-page report—and so we decided to check!

Sure enough! As it turns out, the New York Times has done it again!

On March 17, that report was actually the featured front-page report in the hard-copy Times. In print editions, it sat in the upper right-hand corner of the front page, as you can see right here.

It topped the front page of the Sunday Times! That said:

At the New York Times "Today's Paper" site, the report wasn't listed that day. If you read the Times online that day, you most likely wouldn't have known that the news report even existed!

As a general matter, we don't get a print edition of the Sunday Times. On that particular Sunday, we would have scanned the newspaper's contents by using the Today's Paper site.

That site purports to list all the reports found in that day's print editions. That said, there were five reports on the front page of that day's print editions, but the Today's Paper site listed just four!

That's right! The most important report on that day's front page was omitted from the listings in the Today's Paper site. The Times seems to do this rather frequently, as we've noted on several occasions in the past few months.

Citizens, let's review:

The headline on the report said this:

Trump Allies Are Winning War Over Disinformation

In the March 17 print editions, it was the featured report on the front page of the Sunday Times.

In print editions, it was the most prominent news report in the whole dad-burned newspaper! But if you used the March 17 Today's Paper site, that important news report didn't exist—and even today, it still doesn't.

The Times has done this again and again. For some unknown reason, it fails to list a front-page report—often the featured front-page report—in its Today's Paper listings.

It's a very strange thing to do. Does the Times ever plan to stop?

Special bonus link: If you want to read that front-page report, here it is—ten days later.


53 comments:

  1. I don’t understand why the NYT acts like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most likely logistical or technical reasons. But why does Somerby think there must be consistency across different formats of the paper? As he himself demonstrated, it was easy to find the article.

      Delete
    2. It was easy to find after he found out that it existed.

      Delete
    3. And if he never found out it existed, no harm done.

      Delete

  2. I wrote that letter. I am Corby.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The point of eliminating misinformation is to protect people from their own ignorance. Reality favors those who make decisions consistent with how the world is. The more congruent, the better someone’s outcomes from their endeavors will be. Misinformation introduces a factor that will push people off of their best result. That’s why people seek the best info they can find, and why those with more education have better stats on a whole raft of social outcomes, from jobs and income, to divorce rates, to health outcomes (esp lifestyle related), to investing and so on. Bad info causes problem in daily life.

    Better educated people have a reflex when reading that says “that doesn’t sound right to me” and then the use google to check, much as Somerby dod to find that article. If checking becomes a habit, years of mistaken info can be avoided with a cumulative positive effect.

    But when Somerby discusses the paper, he has a cuiously passive attitude, expecting them to serve up his daily dose of news without any effort on his part. Nothing in life works that way. Even when being fed as a baby, you had to open your mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. For those of you who can't figure it out on your own, the unknown reason for the story's omission is because the headline could be viewed as being pro-Trump. This would cause the algorithms used by the media to suppress anything remotely pro-Trump from ever seeing the light of day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But, this one did see the light of day.

      Delete
    2. @5:05 is BSing but is he lying. I say yes.

      Delete
    3. The NY Times ran an ugly anti-Biden opinion piece today about how much Biden identifies with and loves Ireland, but they no longer love him back because of his Israeli policy. Who knew so many Irish were Palestinian? But why would the NY Times run such an obviously negative hit piece on Biden under the guise of Irish quaintness?

      How is this damaging to Biden? The US is full of American of Irish heritage. There are probably more in the Democratic party than among Republicans because of the influx of Irish immigrants into large population areas (NYC, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco), where they became involved in politics, including machine politics under Boss Tweed, Richard J. Daley (the Boss), and Whitey Bulger and Buddy McLean. So the Irish are important to Democrats. A hit piece that implies that Biden has lost Irish support because of Gaza is a nasty piece of work intended to detach Irish support from Biden.

      It is an atmospheric piece devoid of facts and any evidence that Irish support is affected at all by Biden's attempts to resolve the Gaza conflict. I have little doubt that it was funded by someone looking for negative press against Biden, but the question is why the NY Times ran it?

      Delete
    4. Quaker in a BasementMarch 27, 2024 at 7:02 PM

      "Who knew so many Irish were Palestinian?"

      Not so many Palestinians, but lots of folks who haven't forgotten their Irish history. Irish folks have a historical experience with occupation and forced migration.

      That said, I haven't seen the article nor have I seen any indication that the sentiments of Irish citizens has anything at all to do with American electoral politics. The population of the entire island is less than that of New York City.

      Delete
    5. It is blatant propaganda designed to hurt Biden, if he cares about such things.

      Delete

  5. The internet makes shape-shifting reptiloids panic. They're trying to dismantle it. Hopefully they will fail, and leave, back to their shape-shifting reptiloid planet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is the difference between a reptiloid and a reptilian?

      Delete
    2. I think it's similar to the word android, denoting that it's part human.

      Reptilians (also called reptoids, archons, reptiloids, saurians, draconians, or lizard people) are supposed reptilian humanoids ...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_conspiracy_theory

      Delete
  6. Conservatives would more accurately word that headline, Trump Allies are Winning War over Free Speech

    The problem with "accuracy checking" was recognized in the Satires, a work of the 1st–2nd century Roman poet Juvenal.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    or "Who will watch the watchmen?".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Way to pluck a quote out of context!

      Delete
    2. These problems are usually solved through out court system. They are not insurmountable.

      There have long been limitations on free speech, such as to prevent incitement to riot, crying fire in a theater, to prosecute defamation. I believe that the case of covid misinformation could have been pursued under the public safety limitations because telling someone a vaccine doesn't work and causing them to die, is as bad as inciting to riot or crying fire in a theater (when there is no danger), in terms of harm to innocent individuals.

      Free speech does not allow unfettered irresponsible speech that harms others in a direct way, as denying the efficacy of the covid vaccine did to followers of right wing groups.

      Delete
    3. “Who will watch the watchmen themselves?” Don’t overlook “ipsos”.

      Delete
    4. Correction: I should have written that conservatives would have worded that headline Trump Allies are Winning War over Censorship

      Delete
    5. “Conservatives” misunderstand the Constitution, they think it’s free speech amendment applies to corporations, but it merely prohibits CONGRESS from making a law abridging the freedom of speech.

      Interestingly, Trump tried to limit speech by preventing his opponents from criticizing him on social media, whereas Biden tried to limit speech by preventing falsehoods concerning a public health issue that was potentially causing harm and death to Americans.

      Biden was looking out for Americans, Trump was looking out for himself.

      Trump’s behavior is endorsed by “conservatives”, they get turned on by selfishness and are disgusted by acts of caring and kindness.

      Delete
    6. @Corby 5:44 PM "crying fire in a theater"

      "Crying fire in a theater" is not about yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. It's a bullshit excuse for prosecuting anti-war protesters, Socialists. You can probably find it in wikipedia, check it out.

      Delete
  7. Joe Lieberman has died.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So long, Joe.

      Delete
    2. Murderer of the public option component of ACA.

      Echoing NY Pitchbot, Al Gore can never get enough criticism for choosing Lieberman as VP in the 2000 election.

      Finally, he set the table for serial obstructors Manchin and Sinema.

      Delete
  8. "New RNC Leaders Pull Back on Minority Outreach
    March 27, 2024 at 1:20 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard

    Associated Press: “In fact, the former president’s team has rolled back plans under previous leaders to add hundreds of staff and dozens of new minority-outreach centers in key states without offering a clear alternative.”

    Trolls come here occasionally to tell us that blacks and Hispanics are leaving the Democratic party, but how is that supposed to happen when the RNC is reducing its outreach efforts and abandoning measures that might make diverse people feel welcome on the right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a wise decision by the RNC, donations are drying up, their coffers are emptying, and no amount of outreach was ever going to budge the needle on minority support for Republicans.

      Racial oppression is foundational to the contemporary Republican Party, even going back over 100 years, in the aftermath of the failure of Reconstruction; it’s a highly motivating aspect for their voters.

      Delete
    2. Reconstruction failed because Democrats successfully maintained Jim Crow against Republican opposition to Jim Crow.

      Delete
    3. It was in the aftermath of Reconstruction failing that the Republican Party transitioned from supporting freedoms for Blacks to being openly and actively racist. Lincoln was the very first Republican president, and Republicans supporting Blacks pretty much ended with his death (even Lincoln thought that Blacks, while deserving of some freedoms, were an inferior race to Whites). Those “Democrats” became Republicans, and vice versa. This transition took time and was not linear, but was fully completed by the time of the Southern Strategy.

      Therefore, it is clever for the RNC to avoid wasting money and effort on a losing gambit.

      Hiding behind ahistorical nonsense is also a losing strategy.

      Delete
    4. The Ku Klux Klan was entirely made up of Democrats.

      Delete
    5. Who then became and are now Republicans, your ahistorical nonsense makes you seem ignorant and/or disingenuous.

      Delete
    6. Reconstruction failed because Republicans gave up. It just wasn’t important to them any more.

      Delete
    7. And Andrew Johnson was impeached after Lincoln was murdered, to maintain the racial status quo.

      Delete
    8. @DiC:
      "Reconstruction failed because Democrats successfully maintained Jim Crow against Republican opposition to Jim Crow."

      His Fraudulance Rutherford B. Hayes has entered the chat.

      Delete
    9. Also @ DiC:
      "The Ku Klux Klan was entirely made up of Democrats."

      The Whigs would like a word.

      Delete
    10. DiC pulls this shit all the time. One of Dinesh Desouza's Fractured Fairy Tales. People try to honestly respond and DiC ignores. Rinse and repeat. DiC is a bitter senile racist troll.

      Delete
    11. In a way, DinC is correct.
      Conservative Democrats were racists.
      Conservative Republicans are racists.
      This isn't Democrats vs. Republicans.
      This is Conservatives vs. Humanity.

      Delete
  9. Economics is about surplus and how to management surplus.

    Thomas Sowell is touted in right wing circles because he is a Black right winger, this is an ugly form of racism called tokenism. In reality, Sowell is an ignorant moron.

    A popular economist YouTuber recently took Sowell apart, exposing how dumb his ideas are:

    https://youtu.be/vZjSXS2NdS0?si=dZ0iq7IAoE3tjf64

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Management surplus”?

      Delete
    2. Sowell was educated In the days before affirmative action and DEI. He attended public school in the ghetto of Harlem. Sowell graduated magna cum laude from Harvard in 1958. He earned a master's degree in economics from Columbia University the next year and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968. In his academic career, he held professorships at Cornell University, Brandeis University, and the University of California, Los Angeles.

      He has written around 50 books on a wide variety of topics. All are thoughtful and accurately researched. IMO he has been the leading intellectual voice in this country.

      I invite @8:26 to read some of Sowell's books. If he thinks one of Sowell's books is weak or inaccurate, I would be happy to debate him on the merits of that book.

      BTW @8:26 echoes a common liberal attack on Sowell. It actually shows that many liberals don't really care about black advancement. If they did, they would celebrate the remarkable achievements of this black person.

      Delete
    3. 8:41 typo/autocorrect issue, get a life.

      8:44 Sowell is only revered in right wing circles, he is not a leading intellectual outside of the right wing cult.

      You are attempting an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy. Sowell’s ideas are not held in high regard by most economists, including the referenced one on YouTube who diligently read his books and debunked their ideas.

      In fact, it is Sowell’s right wing fans like you that are engaging in a form of racism called tokenism, whereby they amplify performative interest in a person of color merely because someone like Sowell, a Black right winger, is useful for hiding their racism behind.

      If you watch the video, Sowell is clearly ignorant of understanding economics, but in all likelihood, your bias will keep you in the dark, clinging to your racism, as the wealthy, including grifters like Sowell, con you out of everything else.

      It is a pitiful circumstance.

      Delete
    4. @9:08 I am not going to watch a 2 hour 42 minute video. If you find something written and not too long, I will try to respond. Ideally, I would like to see you present your own understanding and views.

      I don't agree with your view of racism. Lefties ignore and disparage the remarkable accomplishments this black person. Righties publicize and celebrate his accomplishments. How does this make righties the racists?

      Delete
    5. If you won’t learn why should any of us waste time on Sowell?

      Delete
    6. Sowell’s merits are independent of David’s.

      Delete
    7. @10:57 is that video correct on your opinion? Have you watched the entire 3 hour 40 minutes? If you present the highlights of the criticism of Sowell I will respond.

      Delete
    8. Also, if you reduce the judgement against Trump to 5 cents, he'll think about paying it.

      Delete
    9. A reasonable sampling is at 34:50.

      Delete
  10. Lee Barry has died.

    ReplyDelete
  11. President Biden is great:

    https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-black-unemployment/

    ReplyDelete
  12. Trump supporters want to be disinformed. That way they can think of themselves as better than people with an education.

    ReplyDelete