• mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Honestly even that much is a big step for the New York Times. I’m a little surprised they’re not trying to “both sides” it.

      • ares35@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        the news on regular tv last night was totally lopsided. tons of ‘reaction’ from the right and far-right, hardly anything from anyone else.

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The news on regular TV is almost all bought and paid for by Sinclair / Fox / whatever other explicit propaganda outlet. The people reading that bullshit may hate it a lot more than you do, but they may be contractually obligated to go up and say it. It’s real fucked up.

    • blargerer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Best guess? Just avoiding being sued. Something being a false statement is a matter of fact that’s easily proven. Something being a lie requires proving state of mind. In the US I can’t imagine actually winning such a suit, but its still safer to cover asses.