Russia United States war looks imminent: Russian foreign ministry

piezoe said:
Yo're complaining about Headline to an article you can't read. Isn't that a little silly? You should subscribe. Accurate, comprehensive reporting is rare these days. The Times is amazingly accurate most of the time. The business and market reporting is first rate and at the same comprehensive level as the rest of the paper. I read Bloomberg regularly, but I would say even on the Market, the Times is just as good. And the times is less expensive. The only Market related reporting that I believe is a little better than either Bloomberg or NYTimes is that in the Financial Times. But you can't go wrong with any of these sources.
More...


We have different opinions, which is fine. I think the Times a propaganda rag and you think it's the gold standard of reporting.
I'm fine with you having whatever opinion you want. Go ahead.
I simply disagree and no amount of bloviating without evidence will convince me. They left that headline there to deceive. It's that simple. They do it a lot.
 
The Times supported Hitler, Stalin, false Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq lie, the absurd 1619 vanity project.
Here is a changed headline, btw, so they can do it.
Screen Shot 2022-07-20 at 11.18.46 AM.png
 
Why has the Times NEVER reported on
WTC 7 collapse, for example, though they have been alerted to it many times?

Why has this chart never appeared in the Times, even though the data is from the CDC?
Screen Shot 2022-07-20 at 2.13.23 PM.png


These are fundamental societal issues. The NYT ignores them. Fraud by omission is still fraud. Considering the import of these stories, to ignore them is to imply they are not newsworthy, like Hunter's laptop, which they repeatedly called Russian disinfo.
 
misterkel said:
Why has the Times NEVER reported on
WTC 7 collapse, for example, though they have been alerted to it many times?

Why has this chart never appeared in the Times, even though the data is from the CDC?
View attachment 289747

These are fundamental societal issues. The NYT ignores them. Fraud by omission is still fraud. Considering the import of these stories, to ignore them is to imply they are not newsworthy, like Hunter's laptop, which they repeatedly called Russian disinfo.
More...
Ummm "NYTimes WTC 7 collapse" google search turns up 222,000 hits. Starting in Nov 2001 on.
 
Why did REUTERS (and BBC :banghead:) report the WTC7 collapse 30 Minutes before it actually happened?... :)
How is that possible at all?...
Doesn't that smell for a conspiracy?.... :)
 
misterkel said:
The Times supported Hitler, Stalin, false Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq lie, the absurd 1619 vanity project.
Here is a changed headline, btw, so they can do it.View attachment 289726
More...
Did you happen to notice the word printed in red, viz., "opinion". News articles in the Times do not represent Times "support". The Times also publishes opinion pieces. In these, support for a cause, political faction, etc. is often indicated. However, unless those opinion pieces are editorials representing the majority position of the shareholders who control the New York Times Company (a publicly traded Company) they do not necessarily represent the position of the NYT Company.

Your beginning to come off as a bit of a nut.
 
earth_imperator said:
Why did REUTERS (and BBC :banghead:) report the WTC7 collapse 30 Minutes before it actually happened?... :)
How is that possible at all?...
Doesn't that smell for a conspiracy?.... :)
More...
By asking these questions you hope to imply that Reuters and BBC actually did this. It's a less skillfully phrased, version of "When did you stop beating your wife."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top