Biden laptop was Russian disinfo. For example. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick had not been murdered by rampaging Trump supporters during the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riot, as reports had claimed, but had died of natural causes. times reported he was murdered with a fire extinguisher. They kept the story up even after it was proven false by hospital records. The Grey Lady Winked is a book calling out a lot of these lies.
Initially, the Times quoted the Washington Police. They followed up with this on Jan 5th of this year: NYTIMES jan 5 2022: "In the days and weeks after the riot, five police officers who had served at the Capitol on Jan. 6 died. Officer Brian D. Sicknick of the Capitol Police, who was attacked by the mob, died on Jan. 7. Officer Jeffrey Smith of the Metropolitan Police Department killed himself after the attack. Officer Howard S. Liebengood of the Capitol Police also died by suicide four days afterward. The Capitol Police had previously said that Officer Sicknick died from injuries sustained “while physically engaging with protesters.” The Washington medical examiner later ruled that he had died of natural causes: multiple strokes that occurred hours after Officer Sicknick’s confrontation with the mob. The medical examiner added, however, that “all that transpired played a role in his condition.” " This looks like straight forward reporting to me. Where is the deception here attributable to the Times? Initial, incorrect information can be attributed to the Washington Police, but not to the times. Neither the police nor the times acted "deceptively."
I guess we each have our own way of looking at it. Here's the headline on Jan. 8, 2021. He dreamed of Being a Police Officer, then was Killed by a Pro-Trump Mob: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/politics/police-officer-killed-capitol.html It's a complete fabrication. He died of a heart attack a few days later. The article is still there. they did not retract it, but issued a page 6 acknowledgment weeks later to 'correct' it - which no one saw, of course, so the original pg 1 story stuck in the public mind. There was no proper diligence, the headline was absolutely inflammatory and they had no confirmation of the erroneous fire extinguisher story from any credible source. But they printed it anyway. National Enquirer level reporting. There was a juicy story from a totally unreliable, shadowy source, so they headlined it without any vetting whatsoever cuz it fit the Orange Man Bad narrative. Sorry, it's crap reporting. tbf, I don't have a scrip to the Slimes, so I can only read the headlines. But they're pretty damn clear what they wanted to falsely imply.
You Criticized the Headline, but apparently failed to read the first paragraph. UPDATE: New information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police. Notice their source is given. This is where the incorrect information came from. The Times did not make up any of this. They only report and do a beautiful job of it! They report on what their sources tell them. And notice how careful they are to correct when it turns out they have been given incorrect information. Oh, and by the way, Sicknick did not die of a heart attack. He died of a stroke due to an arterial clot in his brain stem. How do I know this? I read it in the Times of course. Why not get a subscription and get caught up on the news -- accurate news that is! I find it particularly amusing that you are criticizing reporting in an article you couldn't read, however this did not prevent you from characterizing the Times source as, "a totally unreliable, shadowy source." (Of course the Time was very careful to name their source.) I am afraid with that kind of vivid imagination you wouldn't last long as a Times reporter, but you might be able to make it as an entertaining opinion writer. Ha!
Stroke, heart attack, whatever. That's clearly not the point. The headline was NOT corrected. It still stands and is false. Hence, fake news. You like the Slimes and for me they're fake news, clot-shot pushers and liberal propaganda tools. To each his own. It's cool. have a great one.
They did NOT correct THE HEADLINE. If you don't pay, that's all you see. Also, it appears they waited quite a bit after the true story was revealed to issue the correction. They failed in their diligence to confirm the story before putting out a dramatic, highly damaging (to conservatives) and notably false front page headline. The story would have been easy to verify or refute, but the writer FAILED TO DO SO in a total lapse of journalistic integrity. It was agenda driven reporting, as much of their reporting is. Liberals can't see it because they agree. But I'm not a partisan, so I make an effort to look at false reports by lib and cons media.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...s-defense-of-alleged-capitol-rioter-ray-epps/ NYTimes runs cover for Ray Epps, having and eating cake simultaneously.
Yo're complaining about Headline to an article you can't read. Isn't that a little silly? You should subscribe. Accurate, comprehensive reporting is rare these days. The Times is amazingly accurate most of the time. The business and market reporting is first rate and at the same comprehensive level as the rest of the paper. I read Bloomberg regularly, but I would say even on the Market, the Times is just as good. And the times is less expensive. The only Market related reporting that I believe is a little better than either Bloomberg or NYTimes is that in the Financial Times. But you can't go wrong with any of these sources.