"untrustworthy" is the word you're looking for.
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
217 points (94.7% liked)
Political Memes
1758 readers
66 users here now
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Huh? I didn't see the typo when I read it.
Only after reading your comment I could see it.
My brain kind of self expanded "untrusty" to "untrustworthy".
I don't think the New York Times has many fans on Lemmy. They have been an untrustworthy and willing tool of the US conservative government since at least 2002 when they published fake intelligence about WMDs in order to sell papers and drum up support for the Iraq war not once but dozens of times, then in 2004 were like 'ohh... My bad'. In 2003 they intentionally withheld publishing information about the illegal and damning NSA domestic spying program initiated by Bush and Cheney - because they asked them to hold off publishing until after the election.
Motherfucker you have no 'journalistic integrity' left after that, and that was over 20 years ago.
I don't think the NYT is untrustworthy wholesale. They still break some stories early, have insider sources for political stories, etc
But they're also very much an outlet committed to making money over most else, have no sympathy for explicit anti-capitalism, and will run just the worst op-eds from the worst people.
Yeah, this post feels like classic splitting. I think Gell-Mann amnesia is a real thing that more people need to be conscientious of, but that just means you should be critical of what you're reading. There are few major newspapers I would seriously blanket consider "untrustworthy", and the NYT is categorically not one of them. Sowing black-and-white distrust in generally reliable press is exactly the bullshit the far-right and disinformation farms (whatever the difference even is now) want.
Any Outlet focused on making money over anything else. Is definitionally untrustworthy. That doesn't mean they cannot publish decent things from time to time. It just means that you cannot trust what they publish to always be correct
Eh, you can trust them to always follow the money though.
"From time to time" is an extremely disingenuous assessment of the NYT's record for fact-checking and investigating. But yes, it cannot always be correct; you do need to be mindful if you ever start reading any source entirely uncritically.
That was less a particular assessment of the times, and more a generalization. But I agree.
They're now on equal footing with the Post.
I've felt this way for 15 years and I am not trans, although I am part of the LGBT community.
Real shame, the Spelling Bee is a lot of fun...
Those Instagram commenters probably think they're making a very pointed insinuation with the ww2 comparisons but like actually, literally, go look what they had to say about the nazi regime up until the point we declared war on germany. Fawning might not even be the right word. NYT has always loved them some fascism.
Can I still hate-read it though?
"uncrusty" is the word you're looking for