01-18-2017, 02:19 PM
(01-18-2017, 10:43 AM)David Horn Wrote:(01-17-2017, 12:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Time or past time for a quote, I think. The original version of your first link was a perfect example of just the facts in a case like, contrary to David, the vast majority of cases where no analysis is required. It was changed to something that is clearly not analysis - since the facts were removed, which wouldn't happen with analysis - and that could only charitably be considered even commentary. Propaganda would be a closer description.
But hey, that's why people read The New York Times - they don't want the facts about how the world actually is, they just want propaganda about what they would like the world to be like.
Were facts removed or was it unsupportable conjecture? If the former, how do you know? Facts that are not validated are in the conjecture camp until the validation is complete.
Facts were removed. Like the simple fact that she resigned, as corroborated by a company announcement and multiple other news sites. But you may have a point; since they seem to have a policy against fact checking, how is The New York Times to know the difference between fact and fantasy? Might as well publish the fantasy, I guess they figure.