- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/26082031
The house style of the New York Times is severely outdated. Depending on the topic, the newspaper’s purportedly impartial tone instead reads as smug, self-amused, and deeply lazy. The results are disastrous when applied to a recent article which sincerely considers the idea that Rachel Griffin-Accurso, the popular children’s entertainer known as Ms. Rachel, might […]
Archived version without paywall: https://archive.is/yE3mF
You must log in or register to comment.
I’ve read the NYT article, and I can’t see anywhere where the author ‘sincerely considers the idea that Rachel Griffin-Accurso, the popular children’s entertainer known as Ms. Rachel, might be financially compensated by Hamas.’ Instead they report that ‘the advocacy group StopAntisemitism’ ‘sent a letter urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether Accurso is receiving funding to further Hamas’s agenda.’
The article as a whole seems pretty positive towards Miss Rachel, and uses her comments to point out how bad things are in Gaza, and insinuates that StopAntisemitism are the problematic ones.
the advocacy group StopAntisemitism’ 'sent a letter
That’s my problem with the article. This letter is meaningless. They might as well report “crazy people send crazy message and are promptly ignored”. Why give them a voice?
From the rest of the article I very much got the ‘crazy people send crazy message’ message, but I can see how that might depend on the reader.
You say the letter is meaningless, but I think we have to be careful. Sesame Street teaches kindness, inclusivity and caring, and I think the republicans would be only too happy for an excuse to tear it down.
Someone needs to kick that interviewers face in. Being a lobbyist and asking loaded question is one thing, but being a journalist for a newspaper that understands itself to be a pillar of democracy and asking such an obvious bullshit question needs to be met with a harsh reaction.
That article is bullshit
There’s the NYT article about Ms. Rachel. Nowhere in there do they accuse her of being funded by Hamas, they just soft-peddle the agitator group that DID accuse her.
Standard mayo sandwich bullshit, but they never even talked to Ms. Rachel, so how could they “ask her if she’s paid by hamas”?
It says “asked” not “claimed”
Oh, so how dare a (checks notes) children’s entertainer give a fuck about children!
I never really had much thought about Ms. Rachel but now that I have a little more information, she is a gem!
Lies always work better when surrounded by truth
The nyt? Oh you mean the non stop American media propaganda machine nyt… that one??
Who pays their bills and bonuses???
