Discussion about this post

User's avatar
VioletEM's avatar

You and Spiers have the same problem: You approach credibility, but completely gaslight the obvious bad faith that seeps from Metz's Murray and "Voldemort" references. It's not just that Metz deigns to "mention" these -- he injects then in a fashion so willfully and maliciously misleading that it would be borderline sanctionable in court. If you can't admit there's malice here, you're either deluded or likewise operating in bad faith, which makes it difficult to engage with the remainder of what you've written. Same goes for Spiers.

Expand full comment
Conor Friedersdorf's avatar

I more or less agree with your characterization of the most conspiratorial claims about the NYT as almost certainly wrong. But I have personally revised my priors about how much the Times cares about factual accuracy downward after hearing how internal 1619 Project fact-checks fared and seeing that the NYT story on SSC has at least one clear factual error that lots of people have pointed out but that hasn't yet been corrected. The misleadingness of how the Murray parts are written is pretty bad too. We needn't presume untoward motives to believe that the content of the story is factually wrong in parts and unfairly misleading in others. That's my modest claim.

Expand full comment
41 more comments...

No posts