TL;DR:
Instead of correcting their falsified claims of rape, New York Times is trying to find out which person has leaked information about their stories and systematically harasses Arab employees to expulse any dissent against israel.
That makes perfect sense.
Scrambling to find ways to look out for Zionists while making it appear they're impartial?
I think we're gonna see a lot of similar 'implosions' in the coming months.
Transparency for themselves would do as much good as the one they dream of having from the government. But no, instead they go on a witch hunt. I hope the guild does not let that go gently
Revealing editing drafts, reporter notes or other confidential materials to outside media erodes trust and undermines our culture of collaboration
FWIW, the union says that the claim that unpublished materials were leaked is bullshit.
Also, I greatly enjoyed the juxtaposition of the freakout over talking with outside media alongside:
(Several former veteran Times journalists told NPR they were taken aback by the turn of events.)
Calling NYT "The Times" is confusing since there already is a newspaper called the Times in the UK.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/