Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

What are the "obvious reasons" that you aren't switching to FOX? Too moderate for you?

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

What are the "obvious reasons" that you aren't switching to FOX? Too moderate for you?

---

I follow a lot of sources from right, left, and center. Fox is kind of a worst-case scenario. It features all the corporate and government shilling you get from legacy media, but without any semblance of professional standards.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

What are the "obvious reasons" that you aren't switching to FOX? Too moderate for you?

---

I follow a lot of sources from right, left, and center. Fox is kind of a worst-case scenario. It features all the corporate and government shilling you get from legacy media, but without any semblance of professional standards.

---

If you never watch it, how do you know? MSNBC tell ya?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

What are the "obvious reasons" that you aren't switching to FOX? Too moderate for you?

---

I follow a lot of sources from right, left, and center. Fox is kind of a worst-case scenario. It features all the corporate and government shilling you get from legacy media, but without any semblance of professional standards.

---

If you never watch it, how do you know? MSNBC tell ya?

---

I don't watch MSNBC.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

What are the "obvious reasons" that you aren't switching to FOX? Too moderate for you?

---

I follow a lot of sources from right, left, and center. Fox is kind of a worst-case scenario. It features all the corporate and government shilling you get from legacy media, but without any semblance of professional standards.

---

If you never watch it, how do you know? MSNBC tell ya?

---

I don't watch MSNBC.

---

Nobody does.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

What are the "obvious reasons" that you aren't switching to FOX? Too moderate for you?

---

I follow a lot of sources from right, left, and center. Fox is kind of a worst-case scenario. It features all the corporate and government shilling you get from legacy media, but without any semblance of professional standards.

---

If you never watch it, how do you know? MSNBC tell ya?

---

I don't watch MSNBC.

---

MSLSD?

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

---

Well...welcome to the club. Again, I don't regard any source as unbiased or worthy of standing alone. The peculiar animosity toward the NYT is a bit of a mystery, but so be it. I like many of your picks, especially the foreign ones.

I'm also very impressed that the AP managed to find a hospital that Israel hadn't bombed. If that's true, it's worthy of a headline in itself.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

---

Well...welcome to the club. Again, I don't regard any source as unbiased or worthy of standing alone. The peculiar animosity toward the NYT is a bit of a mystery, but so be it. I like many of your picks, especially the foreign ones.

I'm also very impressed that the AP managed to find a hospital that Israel hadn't bombed. If that's true, it's worthy of a headline in itself.

---

No mystery about it; the NYT is not anything special and people should stop treating it as anything other than a regular city newspaper. I mean, damn, just the bare minimum of watching a short video before you put out a story on the most explosive national topic since George Floyd...

Hospitals tend to get caught in the crossfire when you have an enemy that prioritizes the use of civilian shields, attempts a genocide, and then retreats into an urban civilian population to use the inevitable casualties as PR points. Not to mention, they used billions of dollars of foreign aid to build a military tunnel complex that included the hospitals and is so extensive that an explosion in one of them struck by penetrating ordnance collapsed several apartment buildings around it where the foundations had been so weakened by the tunnels. Again, no concern for the civilians. It clearly doesn't help that Hamas is determined to go down in a Gotterdammerung like Hitler's bunker. Why not just give back the hostages at this point? I mean, really? Has anyone in Hamas thought about how releasing the hostages might start to ease things up in the region? Do they care? I understand the Gazans are so fanatical in their hate that they dug up a 10 million dollar water pipe system the EU built for the Gazan civilians and converted it into rockets for Jewish civilian targets (and filmed themselves doing it), but at some point Jew-hatred is only going to take you so far.

What really made AP story worthy of a proper headline is that Hamas bombed their own hospital. But I guess when you think about what Hamas stands for, it's not really surprising.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

What are the "obvious reasons" that you aren't switching to FOX? Too moderate for you?

---

I follow a lot of sources from right, left, and center. Fox is kind of a worst-case scenario. It features all the corporate and government shilling you get from legacy media, but without any semblance of professional standards.

---

Funny to read this from Sam, who seems to think the New York Times is trustworthy and honest.

Auburn beats us again.

A message from Auburn University President Christopher B. Roberts pic.twitter.com/0l2mzOFDd1

— Auburn University (@AuburnU) September 17, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done yet?

---

They did it on purpose. We know this because they've made these same "mistakes" for over a decade straight.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

---

Well...welcome to the club. Again, I don't regard any source as unbiased or worthy of standing alone. The peculiar animosity toward the NYT is a bit of a mystery, but so be it. I like many of your picks, especially the foreign ones.

I'm also very impressed that the AP managed to find a hospital that Israel hadn't bombed. If that's true, it's worthy of a headline in itself.

---

No mystery about it; the NYT is not anything special and people should stop treating it as anything other than a regular city newspaper. I mean, damn, just the bare minimum of watching a short video before you put out a story on the most explosive national topic since George Floyd...

Hospitals tend to get caught in the crossfire when you have an enemy that prioritizes the use of civilian shields, attempts a genocide, and then retreats into an urban civilian population to use the inevitable casualties as PR points. Not to mention, they used billions of dollars of foreign aid to build a military tunnel complex that included the hospitals and is so extensive that an explosion in one of them struck by penetrating ordnance collapsed several apartment buildings around it where the foundations had been so weakened by the tunnels. Again, no concern for the civilians. It clearly doesn't help that Hamas is determined to go down in a Gotterdammerung like Hitler's bunker. Why not just give back the hostages at this point? I mean, really? Has anyone in Hamas thought about how releasing the hostages might start to ease things up in the region? Do they care? I understand the Gazans are so fanatical in their hate that they dug up a 10 million dollar water pipe system the EU built for the Gazan civilians and converted it into rockets for Jewish civilian targets (and filmed themselves doing it), but at some point Jew-hatred is only going to take you so far.

What really made AP story worthy of a proper headline is that Hamas bombed their own hospital. But I guess when you think about what Hamas stands for, it's not really surprising.

---

Sooo, you've been trolling.

Well played, sir. You got me.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Auburn beats us again.

A message from Auburn University President Christopher B. Roberts pic.twitter.com/0l2mzOFDd1

— Auburn University (@AuburnU) September 17, 2025

---

Auburn is quietly one of the best state universities in the country.

Larry Ellison (Oracle) and his son David, are about to become a major force in news and networks. They already control CBS and Paramount. CNN, HBO and TikTok are in his sights per NYT's. This probably could not have happened under any other administration but could be smooth sailing today.

It would appear the moneyed right has more bucks than the moneyed left, AKA, Soros and Company.

In my 80 plus years I cannot recall a President with more influence than Donald Trump.

KaiBear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Auburn beats us again.

A message from Auburn University President Christopher B. Roberts pic.twitter.com/0l2mzOFDd1

— Auburn University (@AuburnU) September 17, 2025

---

Auburn is quietly one of the best state universities in the country.

---

That is Purdue......the flyover forgotten college with a great education at bottom basement prices.


But I get what you are saying...Auburn is great. And of course has good football while Purdue is bad

KaiBear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Auburn beats us again.

A message from Auburn University President Christopher B. Roberts pic.twitter.com/0l2mzOFDd1

— Auburn University (@AuburnU) September 17, 2025

---

Auburn is quietly one of the best state universities in the country.

---

Way to go Auburn!

This is a great sifting of the University system.

So far I've seen Auburn, Texas Tech, and Texas State end up on the right side of the sifting.

As far as I know, Baylor under Linda and the current BOR continues to be on the wrong side of it.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Auburn beats us again.

A message from Auburn University President Christopher B. Roberts pic.twitter.com/0l2mzOFDd1

— Auburn University (@AuburnU) September 17, 2025

---

Just after "hating" Auburn the past couple of weeks, you kinda gotta give them a ton of credit

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Auburn beats us again.

A message from Auburn University President Christopher B. Roberts pic.twitter.com/0l2mzOFDd1

— Auburn University (@AuburnU) September 17, 2025

---

Auburn is quietly one of the best state universities in the country.

---

That is Purdue......the flyover forgotten college with a great education at bottom basement prices.


But I get what you are saying...Auburn is great. And of course has good football while Purdue is bad

---

Agree with Purdue.

Another great research university flying under the radar.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

---

Well...welcome to the club. Again, I don't regard any source as unbiased or worthy of standing alone. The peculiar animosity toward the NYT is a bit of a mystery, but so be it. I like many of your picks, especially the foreign ones.

I'm also very impressed that the AP managed to find a hospital that Israel hadn't bombed. If that's true, it's worthy of a headline in itself.

---

No mystery about it; the NYT is not anything special and people should stop treating it as anything other than a regular city newspaper. I mean, damn, just the bare minimum of watching a short video before you put out a story on the most explosive national topic since George Floyd...

Hospitals tend to get caught in the crossfire when you have an enemy that prioritizes the use of civilian shields, attempts a genocide, and then retreats into an urban civilian population to use the inevitable casualties as PR points. Not to mention, they used billions of dollars of foreign aid to build a military tunnel complex that included the hospitals and is so extensive that an explosion in one of them struck by penetrating ordnance collapsed several apartment buildings around it where the foundations had been so weakened by the tunnels. Again, no concern for the civilians. It clearly doesn't help that Hamas is determined to go down in a Gotterdammerung like Hitler's bunker. Why not just give back the hostages at this point? I mean, really? Has anyone in Hamas thought about how releasing the hostages might start to ease things up in the region? Do they care? I understand the Gazans are so fanatical in their hate that they dug up a 10 million dollar water pipe system the EU built for the Gazan civilians and converted it into rockets for Jewish civilian targets (and filmed themselves doing it), but at some point Jew-hatred is only going to take you so far.

What really made AP story worthy of a proper headline is that Hamas bombed their own hospital. But I guess when you think about what Hamas stands for, it's not really surprising

---

---

• AllSides: As of December 2024, the media bias rating organization AllSides rates the Associated Press as "Left".
  
  • This rating was updated from "Lean Left" in November 2024, based on multiple editorial reviews and blind bias surveys.
  • AllSides specifically rates AP's coverage of U.S. politics and its "Fact Check" section as "Lean Left"

-3.03 Left (strong left) for NY TIMES

How we determined this rating:

• Independent Review
• Editorial Review: Feb 2025, Sep 2018
• Community Feedback: 36,399 ratings
• AllSides has high confidence in this bias rating.

Unless otherwise noted, this bias rating refers only to online news coverage, not TV, print, or radio content.

From what Sam posts here, it would appear all his sources seem to lean left. And he craps on Fox News for it's Moderate, slight right, content

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

There's not much out there, but there is some.

---

Newsmax is your best bet

DAC said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

There's not much out there, but there is some.

---

Newsmax is your best bet

---

Hmm

Never watched them, they sound like a tampon maker more than a journalism center

Epoch Times is really good.

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Link:

Contact the Dean and demand corrective action pic.twitter.com/0U9luFv1nG

— Paul Reardon (@PaulJReardon013) September 11, 2025

---

Now we're doxing?

---

That is a Baylor address, public, freely available to those interested in Baylor. One thing to post it, now if they posted a home address, private number, etc. I would call it doxing. Jmo, seems like there is a definite difference between the two.

SmallVol1 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Link:

Contact the Dean and demand corrective action pic.twitter.com/0U9luFv1nG

— Paul Reardon (@PaulJReardon013) September 11, 2025

---

Now we're doxing?

---

That is a Baylor address, public, freely available to those interested in Baylor. One thing to post it, now if they posted a home address, private number, etc. I would call it doxing. Jmo, seems like there is a definite difference between the two.

---

I stand corrected. You are correct

Redbrickbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

UPDATE: University of Kansas says they’re standing by their employee who said Charlie is “better in the ground as worm food” and she will not face any disciplinary action

You can contact @UnivOfKansas here: https://t.co/T9qwDZ1xZy pic.twitter.com/cQi6mY69k3

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 16, 2025

---

It's up to their donors to reply. And how many applying students will drop those applications

---

Probably not many

It's surprising how many people outside of Texas (and inside of Texas) think UT-Austin is a conservative school just because it's located in a Red State and has the name Texas in it.

Most average people just don't follow this stuff very closely.

Probably why Universities have been allowed to run wild…the taxpayers are not focused on them

---

All true and yet, Christians need to start paying attention and defend each other just as other minority groups do.

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

---

Well...welcome to the club. Again, I don't regard any source as unbiased or worthy of standing alone. The peculiar animosity toward the NYT is a bit of a mystery, but so be it. I like many of your picks, especially the foreign ones.

I'm also very impressed that the AP managed to find a hospital that Israel hadn't bombed. If that's true, it's worthy of a headline in itself.

---

No mystery about it; the NYT is not anything special and people should stop treating it as anything other than a regular city newspaper. I mean, damn, just the bare minimum of watching a short video before you put out a story on the most explosive national topic since George Floyd...

Hospitals tend to get caught in the crossfire when you have an enemy that prioritizes the use of civilian shields, attempts a genocide, and then retreats into an urban civilian population to use the inevitable casualties as PR points. Not to mention, they used billions of dollars of foreign aid to build a military tunnel complex that included the hospitals and is so extensive that an explosion in one of them struck by penetrating ordnance collapsed several apartment buildings around it where the foundations had been so weakened by the tunnels. Again, no concern for the civilians. It clearly doesn't help that Hamas is determined to go down in a Gotterdammerung like Hitler's bunker. Why not just give back the hostages at this point? I mean, really? Has anyone in Hamas thought about how releasing the hostages might start to ease things up in the region? Do they care? I understand the Gazans are so fanatical in their hate that they dug up a 10 million dollar water pipe system the EU built for the Gazan civilians and converted it into rockets for Jewish civilian targets (and filmed themselves doing it), but at some point Jew-hatred is only going to take you so far.

What really made AP story worthy of a proper headline is that Hamas bombed their own hospital. But I guess when you think about what Hamas stands for, it's not really surprising

---

---

• AllSides: As of December 2024, the media bias rating organization AllSides rates the Associated Press as "Left".
  
  • This rating was updated from "Lean Left" in November 2024, based on multiple editorial reviews and blind bias surveys.
  • AllSides specifically rates AP's coverage of U.S. politics and its "Fact Check" section as "Lean Left"

-3.03 Left (strong left) for NY TIMES

How we determined this rating:

• Independent Review
• Editorial Review: Feb 2025, Sep 2018
• Community Feedback: 36,399 ratings
• AllSides has high confidence in this bias rating.

Unless otherwise noted, this bias rating refers only to online news coverage, not TV, print, or radio content.

From what Sam posts here, it would appear all his sources seem to lean left. And he craps on Fox News for it's Moderate, slight right, content

---

That's always how the LWNJs are ... they'll lose their mind claiming it is ULTRAFASCIST MAGATRON to criticize the media and then slam Fox News. Zero self-awareness.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

---

Well...welcome to the club. Again, I don't regard any source as unbiased or worthy of standing alone. The peculiar animosity toward the NYT is a bit of a mystery, but so be it. I like many of your picks, especially the foreign ones.

I'm also very impressed that the AP managed to find a hospital that Israel hadn't bombed. If that's true, it's worthy of a headline in itself.

---

No mystery about it; the NYT is not anything special and people should stop treating it as anything other than a regular city newspaper. I mean, damn, just the bare minimum of watching a short video before you put out a story on the most explosive national topic since George Floyd...

Hospitals tend to get caught in the crossfire when you have an enemy that prioritizes the use of civilian shields, attempts a genocide, and then retreats into an urban civilian population to use the inevitable casualties as PR points. Not to mention, they used billions of dollars of foreign aid to build a military tunnel complex that included the hospitals and is so extensive that an explosion in one of them struck by penetrating ordnance collapsed several apartment buildings around it where the foundations had been so weakened by the tunnels. Again, no concern for the civilians. It clearly doesn't help that Hamas is determined to go down in a Gotterdammerung like Hitler's bunker. Why not just give back the hostages at this point? I mean, really? Has anyone in Hamas thought about how releasing the hostages might start to ease things up in the region? Do they care? I understand the Gazans are so fanatical in their hate that they dug up a 10 million dollar water pipe system the EU built for the Gazan civilians and converted it into rockets for Jewish civilian targets (and filmed themselves doing it), but at some point Jew-hatred is only going to take you so far.

What really made AP story worthy of a proper headline is that Hamas bombed their own hospital. But I guess when you think about what Hamas stands for, it's not really surprising.

---

Sooo, you've been trolling.

Well played, sir. You got me.

---

You can tell yourself that. Gazan society is so twisted that they thought it was favorable propaganda to film themselves committing unspeakable atrocities against Jews with Gazan men, women, and children, cheering it on and sharing it online so their Western supporters could cheer with them. There is a video out there of a young Jewish children being shot one after the other in a kibbutz. They thought it was a propaganda victory in the eyes of the world when they paraded a young Jewish woman to the cheers of the Gazan civilians with blood seeping through the crotch area of her pants. They filmed themselves doing acts that media/commercial websites have suppressed because of the depravity of the attacks. There is celebratory videos of the rapes and genital mutilations of girls. There are videos of Gazans looking specifically for children to murder. They targeted safe rooms since they knew civilians and children would be in them. Gazans filmed all this because they thought they were the good guys when they did these things. They were proud of what they did to Jewish children and they wanted to world to see it. They openly and ecstatically rejoiced in the violent torture and death of children, and we know that because they filmed themselves doing it so the supporters of Gaza could rejoice with them.

This was a planned mass murder of Jewish civilians. And you think it's funny.

"Well played, sir" indeed.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

---

Well...welcome to the club. Again, I don't regard any source as unbiased or worthy of standing alone. The peculiar animosity toward the NYT is a bit of a mystery, but so be it. I like many of your picks, especially the foreign ones.

I'm also very impressed that the AP managed to find a hospital that Israel hadn't bombed. If that's true, it's worthy of a headline in itself.

---

No mystery about it; the NYT is not anything special and people should stop treating it as anything other than a regular city newspaper. I mean, damn, just the bare minimum of watching a short video before you put out a story on the most explosive national topic since George Floyd...

Hospitals tend to get caught in the crossfire when you have an enemy that prioritizes the use of civilian shields, attempts a genocide, and then retreats into an urban civilian population to use the inevitable casualties as PR points. Not to mention, they used billions of dollars of foreign aid to build a military tunnel complex that included the hospitals and is so extensive that an explosion in one of them struck by penetrating ordnance collapsed several apartment buildings around it where the foundations had been so weakened by the tunnels. Again, no concern for the civilians. It clearly doesn't help that Hamas is determined to go down in a Gotterdammerung like Hitler's bunker. Why not just give back the hostages at this point? I mean, really? Has anyone in Hamas thought about how releasing the hostages might start to ease things up in the region? Do they care? I understand the Gazans are so fanatical in their hate that they dug up a 10 million dollar water pipe system the EU built for the Gazan civilians and converted it into rockets for Jewish civilian targets (and filmed themselves doing it), but at some point Jew-hatred is only going to take you so far.

What really made AP story worthy of a proper headline is that Hamas bombed their own hospital. But I guess when you think about what Hamas stands for, it's not really surprising.

---

Sooo, you've been trolling.

Well played, sir. You got me.

---

You can tell yourself that. Gazan society is so twisted that they thought it was favorable propaganda to film themselves committing unspeakable atrocities against Jews with Gazan men, women, and children, cheering it on and sharing it online so their Western supporters could cheer with them. There is a video out there of a young Jewish children being shot one after the other in a kibbutz. They thought it was a propaganda victory in the eyes of the world when they paraded a young Jewish woman to the cheers of the Gazan civilians with blood seeping through the crotch area of her pants. They filmed themselves doing acts that media/commercial websites have suppressed because of the depravity of the attacks. There is celebratory videos of the rapes and genital mutilations of girls. There are videos of Gazans looking specifically for children to murder. They targeted safe rooms since they knew civilians and children would be in them. Gazans filmed all this because they thought they were the good guys when they did these things. They were proud of what they did to Jewish children and they wanted to world to see it. They openly and ecstatically rejoiced in the violent torture and death of children, and we know that because they filmed themselves doing it so the supporters of Gaza could rejoice with them.

This was a planned mass murder of Jewish civilians. And you think it's funny.

"Well played, sir" indeed.

---

None of it is funny. Western media have suppressed a great deal of information on the killing of Palestinians as well, but of course someone with your media savvy already knows that. You choose not to acknowledge it, as you choose not to acknowledge Israel's deliberate targeting of civilians, hospitals, aid workers, etc.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

---

Well...welcome to the club. Again, I don't regard any source as unbiased or worthy of standing alone. The peculiar animosity toward the NYT is a bit of a mystery, but so be it. I like many of your picks, especially the foreign ones.

I'm also very impressed that the AP managed to find a hospital that Israel hadn't bombed. If that's true, it's worthy of a headline in itself.

---

No mystery about it; the NYT is not anything special and people should stop treating it as anything other than a regular city newspaper. I mean, damn, just the bare minimum of watching a short video before you put out a story on the most explosive national topic since George Floyd...

Hospitals tend to get caught in the crossfire when you have an enemy that prioritizes the use of civilian shields, attempts a genocide, and then retreats into an urban civilian population to use the inevitable casualties as PR points. Not to mention, they used billions of dollars of foreign aid to build a military tunnel complex that included the hospitals and is so extensive that an explosion in one of them struck by penetrating ordnance collapsed several apartment buildings around it where the foundations had been so weakened by the tunnels. Again, no concern for the civilians. It clearly doesn't help that Hamas is determined to go down in a Gotterdammerung like Hitler's bunker. Why not just give back the hostages at this point? I mean, really? Has anyone in Hamas thought about how releasing the hostages might start to ease things up in the region? Do they care? I understand the Gazans are so fanatical in their hate that they dug up a 10 million dollar water pipe system the EU built for the Gazan civilians and converted it into rockets for Jewish civilian targets (and filmed themselves doing it), but at some point Jew-hatred is only going to take you so far.

What really made AP story worthy of a proper headline is that Hamas bombed their own hospital. But I guess when you think about what Hamas stands for, it's not really surprising.

---

Sooo, you've been trolling.

Well played, sir. You got me.

---

You can tell yourself that. Gazan society is so twisted that they thought it was favorable propaganda to film themselves committing unspeakable atrocities against Jews with Gazan men, women, and children, cheering it on and sharing it online so their Western supporters could cheer with them. There is a video out there of a young Jewish children being shot one after the other in a kibbutz. They thought it was a propaganda victory in the eyes of the world when they paraded a young Jewish woman to the cheers of the Gazan civilians with blood seeping through the crotch area of her pants. They filmed themselves doing acts that media/commercial websites have suppressed because of the depravity of the attacks. There is celebratory videos of the rapes and genital mutilations of girls. There are videos of Gazans looking specifically for children to murder. They targeted safe rooms since they knew civilians and children would be in them. Gazans filmed all this because they thought they were the good guys when they did these things. They were proud of what they did to Jewish children and they wanted to world to see it. They openly and ecstatically rejoiced in the violent torture and death of children, and we know that because they filmed themselves doing it so the supporters of Gaza could rejoice with them.

This was a planned mass murder of Jewish civilians. And you think it's funny.

"Well played, sir" indeed.

---

None of it is funny. Western media have suppressed a great deal of information on the killing of Palestinians as well, but of course someone with your media savvy already knows that. You choose not to acknowledge it, as you choose not to acknowledge Israel's deliberate targeting of civilians, hospitals, aid workers, etc.

---

The Israeli-Hamas ends tomorrow if Hamas releases Israeli hostages

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

---

Well...welcome to the club. Again, I don't regard any source as unbiased or worthy of standing alone. The peculiar animosity toward the NYT is a bit of a mystery, but so be it. I like many of your picks, especially the foreign ones.

I'm also very impressed that the AP managed to find a hospital that Israel hadn't bombed. If that's true, it's worthy of a headline in itself.

---

No mystery about it; the NYT is not anything special and people should stop treating it as anything other than a regular city newspaper. I mean, damn, just the bare minimum of watching a short video before you put out a story on the most explosive national topic since George Floyd...

Hospitals tend to get caught in the crossfire when you have an enemy that prioritizes the use of civilian shields, attempts a genocide, and then retreats into an urban civilian population to use the inevitable casualties as PR points. Not to mention, they used billions of dollars of foreign aid to build a military tunnel complex that included the hospitals and is so extensive that an explosion in one of them struck by penetrating ordnance collapsed several apartment buildings around it where the foundations had been so weakened by the tunnels. Again, no concern for the civilians. It clearly doesn't help that Hamas is determined to go down in a Gotterdammerung like Hitler's bunker. Why not just give back the hostages at this point? I mean, really? Has anyone in Hamas thought about how releasing the hostages might start to ease things up in the region? Do they care? I understand the Gazans are so fanatical in their hate that they dug up a 10 million dollar water pipe system the EU built for the Gazan civilians and converted it into rockets for Jewish civilian targets (and filmed themselves doing it), but at some point Jew-hatred is only going to take you so far.

What really made AP story worthy of a proper headline is that Hamas bombed their own hospital. But I guess when you think about what Hamas stands for, it's not really surprising.

---

Sooo, you've been trolling.

Well played, sir. You got me.

---

You can tell yourself that. Gazan society is so twisted that they thought it was favorable propaganda to film themselves committing unspeakable atrocities against Jews with Gazan men, women, and children, cheering it on and sharing it online so their Western supporters could cheer with them. There is a video out there of a young Jewish children being shot one after the other in a kibbutz. They thought it was a propaganda victory in the eyes of the world when they paraded a young Jewish woman to the cheers of the Gazan civilians with blood seeping through the crotch area of her pants. They filmed themselves doing acts that media/commercial websites have suppressed because of the depravity of the attacks. There is celebratory videos of the rapes and genital mutilations of girls. There are videos of Gazans looking specifically for children to murder. They targeted safe rooms since they knew civilians and children would be in them. Gazans filmed all this because they thought they were the good guys when they did these things. They were proud of what they did to Jewish children and they wanted to world to see it. They openly and ecstatically rejoiced in the violent torture and death of children, and we know that because they filmed themselves doing it so the supporters of Gaza could rejoice with them.

This was a planned mass murder of Jewish civilians. And you think it's funny.

"Well played, sir" indeed.

---

None of it is funny. Western media have suppressed a great deal of information on the killing of Palestinians as well, but of course someone with your media savvy already knows that. You choose not to acknowledge it, as you choose not to acknowledge Israel's deliberate targeting of civilians, hospitals, aid workers, etc.

---

The Israeli-Hamas ends tomorrow if Hamas releases Israeli hostages

---

No, it wouldn't. The Israelis have said as much, and in any case they would kill the Hamas negotiators before allowing any settlement to be reached.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

---

Well...welcome to the club. Again, I don't regard any source as unbiased or worthy of standing alone. The peculiar animosity toward the NYT is a bit of a mystery, but so be it. I like many of your picks, especially the foreign ones.

I'm also very impressed that the AP managed to find a hospital that Israel hadn't bombed. If that's true, it's worthy of a headline in itself.

---

No mystery about it; the NYT is not anything special and people should stop treating it as anything other than a regular city newspaper. I mean, damn, just the bare minimum of watching a short video before you put out a story on the most explosive national topic since George Floyd...

Hospitals tend to get caught in the crossfire when you have an enemy that prioritizes the use of civilian shields, attempts a genocide, and then retreats into an urban civilian population to use the inevitable casualties as PR points. Not to mention, they used billions of dollars of foreign aid to build a military tunnel complex that included the hospitals and is so extensive that an explosion in one of them struck by penetrating ordnance collapsed several apartment buildings around it where the foundations had been so weakened by the tunnels. Again, no concern for the civilians. It clearly doesn't help that Hamas is determined to go down in a Gotterdammerung like Hitler's bunker. Why not just give back the hostages at this point? I mean, really? Has anyone in Hamas thought about how releasing the hostages might start to ease things up in the region? Do they care? I understand the Gazans are so fanatical in their hate that they dug up a 10 million dollar water pipe system the EU built for the Gazan civilians and converted it into rockets for Jewish civilian targets (and filmed themselves doing it), but at some point Jew-hatred is only going to take you so far.

What really made AP story worthy of a proper headline is that Hamas bombed their own hospital. But I guess when you think about what Hamas stands for, it's not really surprising.

---

Sooo, you've been trolling.

Well played, sir. You got me.

---

You can tell yourself that. Gazan society is so twisted that they thought it was favorable propaganda to film themselves committing unspeakable atrocities against Jews with Gazan men, women, and children, cheering it on and sharing it online so their Western supporters could cheer with them. There is a video out there of a young Jewish children being shot one after the other in a kibbutz. They thought it was a propaganda victory in the eyes of the world when they paraded a young Jewish woman to the cheers of the Gazan civilians with blood seeping through the crotch area of her pants. They filmed themselves doing acts that media/commercial websites have suppressed because of the depravity of the attacks. There is celebratory videos of the rapes and genital mutilations of girls. There are videos of Gazans looking specifically for children to murder. They targeted safe rooms since they knew civilians and children would be in them. Gazans filmed all this because they thought they were the good guys when they did these things. They were proud of what they did to Jewish children and they wanted to world to see it. They openly and ecstatically rejoiced in the violent torture and death of children, and we know that because they filmed themselves doing it so the supporters of Gaza could rejoice with them.

This was a planned mass murder of Jewish civilians. And you think it's funny.

"Well played, sir" indeed.

---

None of it is funny. Western media have suppressed a great deal of information on the killing of Palestinians as well, but of course someone with your media savvy already knows that. You choose not to acknowledge it, as you choose not to acknowledge Israel's deliberate targeting of civilians, hospitals, aid workers, etc.

---

The Israeli-Hamas ends tomorrow if Hamas releases Israeli hostages

---

No, it wouldn't. The Israelis have said as much, and in any case they would kill the Hamas negotiators before allowing any settlement to be reached.

---

Interesting assertion
I assert differently

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

Munch away; I hope you enjoy your popcorn.

Washington Times has a conservative bias, but I don't think it's significantly worse than any other city newspaper. They got Hunter's laptop, Jussie Smollett's hoax, and the Russia Collusion hoax right when many other news organizations didn't until significantly later. Their reporting on the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan as the source of Covid-19 is no longer the crazy claim other news organizations made it out to be before studies leaning toward it came out this year.
Their main journalistic malpractice that I am aware of was the Aaron Rich story, which had them on the hook for a lawsuit.

You want me to recommend something objective. An objective view when it comes to news is approached from viewing a multiplicity of perspectives and then making judgments between them. I recommend reading broadly across the political spectrum. I used to say the Associated Press articles and BBC (left-wing bias on some topics) as a sole answer, but then I think about the significant problems in their reporting on the Hamas war, like when the BBC defended at first, but then had to pull a Palestinian-produced propaganda documentary that was revealed to be connected to Hamas, a link that was hidden from the viewer. It was bad enough that The Guardian (far-left bias) reported:

"Failings in the making of a documentary on Gaza are a "dagger to the heart" of the BBC's claims of trustworthiness and impartiality, the corporation's chair [Samir Shah] has said, as he indicated that figures inside the corporation had fallen short in their handling of the film."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/04/gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone-documentary-bbc-credibility-samir-shah

Or when the Associated Press falsely reported and later had to retract the claim that Israel bombed a hospital, or printing Hamas' inflated civilian casualty figures implying it was a fact, sometimes without specifying the source.

So I'm not going to give you a single go-to.

So at home, a variety of large city newspapers, especially the ones close to local major events (the national stories tend to be the same AP/Reuters in many cases. You might even get a syndicated NYT story, so be careful). Foreign news sources are a good check-up on one's perspective, including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, France 24, and others, as long as you understand the strong regional biases inherent in their reporting. The existence of Twitter, blogs, and other platforms have really expanded the possibilities and are worth searching through for experts if you have an interest in a particular area like the Ukrainian War, China-US relations, tariffs, or any other topic. I found some of these sources to be more knowledgeable and better informed than many journalists. I'm not going to make recommendations here; you can search for new information sources and make your own judgements on the reliability of what you find.

Treating the New York Times as a solid credible news source that doesn't need checking against other sources is a mistake. It no longer stands on its own. That is why George Bush Sr. stopped including it in his daily news sources. It's fine if you want to include it in a collection of news sources, but it no longer has the premier status of objectivity it used to have. I used to read it fairly regularly until the deterioration of its standards got significant enough that I didn't see the point in treating it any different than any other city newspaper.

---

Well...welcome to the club. Again, I don't regard any source as unbiased or worthy of standing alone. The peculiar animosity toward the NYT is a bit of a mystery, but so be it. I like many of your picks, especially the foreign ones.

I'm also very impressed that the AP managed to find a hospital that Israel hadn't bombed. If that's true, it's worthy of a headline in itself.

---

No mystery about it; the NYT is not anything special and people should stop treating it as anything other than a regular city newspaper. I mean, damn, just the bare minimum of watching a short video before you put out a story on the most explosive national topic since George Floyd...

Hospitals tend to get caught in the crossfire when you have an enemy that prioritizes the use of civilian shields, attempts a genocide, and then retreats into an urban civilian population to use the inevitable casualties as PR points. Not to mention, they used billions of dollars of foreign aid to build a military tunnel complex that included the hospitals and is so extensive that an explosion in one of them struck by penetrating ordnance collapsed several apartment buildings around it where the foundations had been so weakened by the tunnels. Again, no concern for the civilians. It clearly doesn't help that Hamas is determined to go down in a Gotterdammerung like Hitler's bunker. Why not just give back the hostages at this point? I mean, really? Has anyone in Hamas thought about how releasing the hostages might start to ease things up in the region? Do they care? I understand the Gazans are so fanatical in their hate that they dug up a 10 million dollar water pipe system the EU built for the Gazan civilians and converted it into rockets for Jewish civilian targets (and filmed themselves doing it), but at some point Jew-hatred is only going to take you so far.

What really made AP story worthy of a proper headline is that Hamas bombed their own hospital. But I guess when you think about what Hamas stands for, it's not really surprising.

---

Sooo, you've been trolling.

Well played, sir. You got me.

---

You can tell yourself that. Gazan society is so twisted that they thought it was favorable propaganda to film themselves committing unspeakable atrocities against Jews with Gazan men, women, and children, cheering it on and sharing it online so their Western supporters could cheer with them. There is a video out there of a young Jewish children being shot one after the other in a kibbutz. They thought it was a propaganda victory in the eyes of the world when they paraded a young Jewish woman to the cheers of the Gazan civilians with blood seeping through the crotch area of her pants. They filmed themselves doing acts that media/commercial websites have suppressed because of the depravity of the attacks. There is celebratory videos of the rapes and genital mutilations of girls. There are videos of Gazans looking specifically for children to murder. They targeted safe rooms since they knew civilians and children would be in them. Gazans filmed all this because they thought they were the good guys when they did these things. They were proud of what they did to Jewish children and they wanted to world to see it. They openly and ecstatically rejoiced in the violent torture and death of children, and we know that because they filmed themselves doing it so the supporters of Gaza could rejoice with them.

This was a planned mass murder of Jewish civilians. And you think it's funny.

"Well played, sir" indeed.

---

None of it is funny. Western media have suppressed a great deal of information on the killing of Palestinians as well, but of course someone with your media savvy already knows that. You choose not to acknowledge it, as you choose not to acknowledge Israel's deliberate targeting of civilians, hospitals, aid workers, etc.

---

You think discussing the gleeful murder of Jewish children is trolling. You think it's a joke. You can't face the level of depravity committed by the Gazans. They were so proud of these depravities they filmed them and Gazan society cheered them on.
You ignore Hamas using the civilian population as human shields, not out of expediency but planned ahead of time. You choose not to acknowledge that. You defend Hamas instead as victims of the October 2023 massacre.

You think pointing that out is trolling. You think it's funny.

How some of you are able to draw parallel lines between these two combatants is beyond me.

The dirty Jewish dogs store weapons and launch rockets from hospitals. They hide behind women and children for protection. Hamas saturates an area with leaflets letting Israelis know a strike OC coming.

Jewish scum!













What's that? I have it backwards?
Never mind.

I should have seen, once Sam's posts started veering Left, that hatred of the Jews and lying about them would follow soon after.