New York Times' botched Kavanaugh story the latest in series of blunders from Opinion section

I had been so frustrated with their “opinion” section I dropped my subscription a few months ago. Something will have to change for me to go back

survive.

He's a Trumpbot and Kavanaugh apologist extraordinaire. I was wondering why he texted me out of the blue this afternoon. I threw this latest Kavanaugh scandal in his face but he used a crapload of laughing emojis (like a friggin' 12-year-old) and dismissed it as "fake news". I didn't think anything of it at the time because he always dismisses any news item that puts the felons and ReThugs he worships in a bad light as "fake news". And then this comes to light.

I don't give a damn what he thinks, but I hate giving him free ammo like this. Why can't NY Times fact check this stuff first? There's no doubt that Kavanaugh is a lowlife scumbag, but a muck up of this magnitude only serves to makes him like exactly what a-hole cons like my uncle have been whining he is the whole time: The hapless victim of an unscrupulous, politically-driven witch hunt. He's NOT, of course, but that's the kind of crap we're gonna hear all over again.

Even if everything should fall apart for Cheeto and his gangsters in an ugly way (including jail time), they'll still defend him until their dying breath.

Cheeto is the first president to openly echo their pet ethnic hatreds, and they'll always be grateful.

And if I'm cornered, I keep it to simple moral arguments and avoid any situation that leads people to cherry pick facts. If they insist, I demand they provide their facts in the clear with full context. If they fail that simple metric, I remove myself from the conversation. If they follow me, I thank my host, tell them why I'm leaving, and I leave w/out further discussion.

These conversations are always about spin and social engineering loved ones. I find that distasteful.

Trust me, don't engage with zealots.

Uninformed as Hell and easily led.

piggybacks, undeservingly, on the legitimacy of their few niches of strong original content. Second worse is their access-journalism-style political coverage, and it is a close second.

I was watching the news tonight and the NYTimes reporter was discussing the original Kavanaugh news stories they covered and when I heard this I said out loud (really I did), "Fuck you NYTimes. You are crap and I will not listen to your twisted BS any more and many other Dems agree with me!". Then I changed the channel. I have woken up and smelled the coffee.

Shame on the Times.

That’s why I cancelled...

Yesterday, I cancelled my digital subscription because their sloppiness is never-ending.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212468321

Take a look at response #21 for perfect examples.

forgetting an event from 35 years ago proves about nothing so omitting that relevant fact is not such a big deal. Her failure to remember is relevant but doesn’t mean all that much. So I view this omission by The NY Times as not all that important.

If we are to topple the sham institutions and politics that are lying to us, it will be done with facts and with the truth.

I read mostly Krugman, Friedman, Bruni sometimes, and Kristof. Linda Greenhouse’s pieces on legal matters are usually very good. David Brooks is living in another century most of the time, and I refuse to read anything Maureen Dowd writes. Bret Stephens is the Republican apologist usually trying to put lipstick on the Republican Party pig.

The Times has definitely fallen in quality, and most often seems to be slanting even news headlines to make them less critical of Trump’s offenses and corruption. Of course, we don’t really have any mainstream media that is completely honest in their coverage of Trump or Democrats.