- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The New York Times.... of all media...
Posted on 9/11/19 at 3:07 pm to Jorts R Us
Posted on 9/11/19 at 3:07 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:My first instinct is to agree. But if I know that 90% of the tweet recipients are either too lazy or too stupid to read the linked article, I suspect that the NYT probably realizes this as well. They would seem to have an ethical obligation to be a bit more accurate, if they can fit accuracy into their 280 characters.
Like I said, the article doesn't shy away from calling it terrorism. While the tweet is the first thing many see, it doesn't change the tone or intent of the article. That was my point.
I'm glad they edited the tweet; I just don't share your view that it was a deliberate attempt to sanitize anything given the actual content of the article. You believe what you want, though.
With that being said, the same people would be whining, if the Times had mentioned terrorism in the tweet, but not ISLAMIC terrorism. If the NYT had mentioned Islamic terrorism, the same crowd would be whining that the Saudis were not mentioned. If the Saudis had been mentioned, they would be whining that the tweet did not call Muhammad a pedophile and a murderer.
Some people just insist upon being offended.
2
Posted on 9/11/19 at 3:13 pm to AggieHank86
You’re way behind, and wrong and your instincts are shite.
Posted on 9/11/19 at 4:07 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Some people just insist upon being offended.
It sounds like the original article also failed to characterize 9/11 as a terrorist attack and they had to edit the article to include that characterization in addition to issuing a new tweet. I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I was mistaken.
Granted, this isn't a current event so most people aren't going to draw their knowledge of 9/11 from this article, but to completely omit the link between 9/11 and terrorism is too egregious for me. Had it just been the tweet, I could and ,in fact, did argue that the intent wasn't there. Having seen that they had to edit the actual article to include any reference to terrorism...well, I'm not going to defend that.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News