by It is a basic rule from Journalism 101 that when an allegation is in serious doubt – or hasn’t been established as fact – you should convey that uncertainty to your reader by using words like “alleged” or “purportedly.” But The New York Times and pretty much the entire U.S. news media have abandoned that principle in their avid pursuit of Russia-gate. When Russia is the target of an article, the Times typically casts aside all uncertainty about Russia’s guilt, a pattern that we’ve seen in the Times in earlier sloppy reporting about other “enemy” countries, such as Iraq or Syria, as well Russia’s involvement in Ukraine’s civil war. Again and again, the Times regurgitates highly tendentious claims by the U.S. government as undeniable truth. So, despite the lack of publicly provided
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: fake news, New York Times, Russiagate, US media propaganda
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes The Deepfake iPhone Apps Are Here — Jacob Schulz
Mike Norman writes Who Will Tell the Truth About the So-Called ‘Free Press’? — Jeremy R. Hammond
Mike Norman writes The Terrorists Among US10| The IO Echo Chamber Scott Shane Joel Harding — George Eliason
Mike Norman writes Bill Mitchell — Latest instalment in Project Fear is not very scary at all despite the headlines
It is a basic rule from Journalism 101 that when an allegation is in serious doubt – or hasn’t been established as fact – you should convey that uncertainty to your reader by using words like “alleged” or “purportedly.” But The New York Times and pretty much the entire U.S. news media have abandoned that principle in their avid pursuit of Russia-gate.
When Russia is the target of an article, the Times typically casts aside all uncertainty about Russia’s guilt, a pattern that we’ve seen in the Times in earlier sloppy reporting about other “enemy” countries, such as Iraq or Syria, as well Russia’s involvement in Ukraine’s civil war. Again and again, the Times regurgitates highly tendentious claims by the U.S. government as undeniable truth.
So, despite the lack of publicly provided evidence that the Russian government did “hack” Democratic emails and slip them to WikiLeaks to damage Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump, the Times continues to treat those allegations as flat fact.It beggars belief that a professional organization would do such a thing without it being intentional. Which is a tell that the "reporting" is propaganda rather than news — in short, faked "news" rather than real news.
This doesn't disprove the allegations. It simply asserts the well-established principle that allegations are not facts and should be clearly distinguished from facts.
"Totalitarian style" maybe an exaggeration but it is certainly unprofessional and smacks of McCarthyism. There are some grounds for calling it "totalitarian" though. In present day Russia, the US media reportedly has the reputation of sounding like Pravda and Izvestia under the Soviet regime.