NYT: Clinton supporters donated $700K to help Trump accusers

[still_one]

11. This has been the pattern of the NYTimes to push the false equivalency theme, and why I cancelled

my subscription to them back in May of 2017, and now subscribe to the Washington Post.

It started when the NY Times first hired climate denier Bret Stephens at a time when the trump administration and the republicans want to undo any gains made to curb green house gases, pollution, and exit the Paris Accords. No NY Times we don't need anymore fake information from the likes of Bret Stephens push Climate Change as a myth.

Perhaps one of their most outrageous was when the NY Times blamed the Democrats, and specifically President Obama for being responsible for pushing republicans to be climate change deniers because of the "Democratic hubris in the Obama years":

"The Republican Party’s fast journey from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic shelf, favoring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over cooperation and conciliation."

They then proceeded in the article to make excuses for the republicans by saying "most republicans do not believe climate change is a hoax"

“Most Republicans still do not regard climate change as a hoax,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican strategist who worked for Senator Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign. “But the entire climate change debate has now been caught up in the broader polarization of American politics.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


In another instance they did the false equivalency garbage between the republicans and Democrats through a video by Mark Scheffle and Shane O'Neill telling us how both republicans and Democrats have flip-flopped on Comey. It is so out of context it is pathetic. This is what the NY Times has become.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000005090191/comey-fired-democrats-republicans.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Another example was when one of the Democrats on the FEC stepped down, the Times built the false equivalency argument that how there is deadlock because both sides won't budge. That was NOT the case at all, and was a gross distortion again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/fec-elections-ann-ravel-campaign-finance.html

In fact that report was so messed up, that the Democrat who resigned from the commission wrote a rebuttal to state the reality of the situation:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/opinion/dysfunction-and-deadlock-at-the-federal-election-commission.html

They have been doing the false equivalency schtick all through 2016, and they were right out there with the rest of the media outlets with headlines implying how Comey reopened the email investigation, while hidden between the ether that the email investigation was not reopened. One has to wonder if that was their attempt at sensationalism, rather then putting it in proper context

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/30/ny-times-floods-front-page-fbi-letter-stories-while-acknowledging-it-didn-t-reopen-clinton-server/214202

There are plenty more examples, but suffice to say, the NY Times isn't even in the shadow of the newspaper it used to be