Most people who understand the difference between journalism and a jackass putting who regularly puts demonstrably false information up on a website do trust the NY Times over Zero Hedge. I'd also trust Fox News over Zero Hedge. You'd have to be blinded by a particular virulent form of partisan extremism to think otherwise.
Have to be, eh? Cause the NY Times is sooo reliable. Let me guess, you believe climate change is going to melt all the ice and drown us all by 2100?
I apologize if this rains on your parade, however in 2018 china's death rate was 7.13 per thousand. China's population is ~1.3 billion. Assuming it's one billion they would normally need between 50 and 60 thousand urns per month nation wide. (I think maybe. I did this math in my head, so it's questionable.)
No i'm talking about in the city of wuhan for the corona virus deaths .This was over a week period or so. Bottom line its total bs that only 3500 people died. I assure you if we've lost $54k people they lost 300k people minimum. And yes Zero hedge has very interesting articles . Yes they have a lot of bs article for sure but also some good ones.
I fell for the story too....turns out some of the ultra right wing separatists in the US were pushing it through epoch times and other venues on youtube. The Urn count doesn't tell the whole story, as there were plenty of people who kept dying from other causes. Death doesn't just stop at COVID.
I do believe in science. Since no one in the scientific community has even hypothesized that we'll all drown by 2100 and hence the NYT hasn't reported on that, you appear to simply be trolling. All the more given your digression has FA to do with the conversation at hand. What exactly do you hope to accomplish here again?
The Times is extremely reliable. I think it is a function of the way they are funded and controlled, which you might want to look into in some detail. Of course they have, over their long history, made a few serious blunders that they have had to apologize for. And they have had to fire a few folks for being dishonest. But by and large they have excellent editorial review and gate keeping. If you want the truth, there are few more reliable places to go for it than the Times. The WaPo is similar in that regard. WaPo ownership rests mainly in one person who not get involved or interfere editorially. It is also a reliable source of information, because they go out of their way to independently confirm before publishing.
Unfortunately his type is unable to distinguish between "they report on issues I don't agree with" with "they are fake news". The concept that real journalists have editorial reviews and source confirmation requirements and do retractions when they inevitably make mistakes while the dipshits at ZH have none of that stuff is far too nuanced for that mindset, unfortunately.