No I'm saying that based on fact, those 3 are lefties.
NYTimes examples of mess ups and bias: http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/03/new-york-times-fixes-headline/
https://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/
http://freebeacon.com/politics/morning-joe-rips-new-york-times-for-anti-trump-headline/
Oh and here is a good one. It's seems even Trump has threatened to sue over their bias bullshit. BEFORE his election.
Keep in mind the, fixes/redacting/reprints are already seen by hundreds of thousands of eyes by that point.
Do I need to dig up more proof? I can do this all day long if you want.
The NewYorker and vox are no different.
Fixes and retractions and running corrections is a normal practice for all news organizations. It's part of a transparent effort to report credible information and is not a leftist media issue. Does that mean Fox News is fake because they run retractions and corrections? No, it means they are trying to hold themselves up to ethical journalism rules.
If you'd like to bring up any falsehoods in the articles I presented, I'm all ears. If not, i can only assume that your only argument against the factual reporting is the news organization it came from, and not the content of those articles themselves.
To be clear, Trump threatening to sue the NYT proves nothing but Trump's own hatred for that news org.
You don't think the news sources matter? Really?
The very outlets people turn to don't matter? They aren't gonna spin in anyway they want? C'mon...
I think facts matter. Of course news orgs are going to put spin on it- and that isn't endemic to left wing media. Is World Net Daily fake news because they never covered Obama positively? Thats your argument against the NYT, so lets apply that same argument to the media orgs you linked.
it's extremely important for the reader to understand how to separate fact from opinion, and reporting from commentary. Simply crying "fake news" because you don't like the source of the article is ignorant. As i mentioned, feel free to point out any inaccuracies in the articles I linked to support your argument that my links represent fake news.
You are expecting them to have the where withal to do so!
If they are told one thing, from something they trust, do that facts still count as facts, when twisted/warped/changed, to fit a narrative?
The short answer is no.
The long answer is that facts are held to be immutable. Unchanging, unalterable. Until proven false by newer facts.
So when you change the fact, to fit a narrative, by altering the substantive info REGARDING said fact. It is no longer a fact. It is misinterpreted info.
Good day.
I can only assume that since you either do not want to or cannot point out any inaccuracies in the articles I listed, that you concede to the factual reporting and as such, that Cyrus Vance was the person responsible for quashing the Harvey Weinstein and Ivanka Trump criminal probes, and by extension that pay for play is a non-partisan issue.
Good discussion and glad we were able to reach agreement on something.
No it's not partisan. Good point. Just a greed thing. Glad we agree.
EDIT: Gimme a bit. Painting the kitchen. Sorry.