More New York Times lies

The New York Times article "How Russia Often Benefits When Julian Assange Reveals the West's Secrets" is nothing more than a tissue of lies. The sub-title of this newspaper of record ought to be: just making stuff up.


The article starts by noting there is no evidence of links between WikiLeaks and Russia, which is accurate. Yet the rest of the article is nothing more than an attempt to make the reader believe the claim is false. The falsehoods, misrepresentations and insuinuations begin almost immediately. The article contains at least fourteen falsehoods; falsehoods that the New York Times must know are false. In plain English, that is called lying.


WikiLeaks has issued a line by line refutation of the article. It is devastating. That the New York Times can be so easily shown to be, not merely an organ of propaganda, but that it is prepared to just make up its "facts", should destroy its reputation, forever.


This degree of mendacity raises the question of why a newspaper that boasts of its commitment to ethical journalism would so recklessly throw away its good reputation? The only possible answer is that WikiLeaks' placing of information in the public domain is seen by the neoliberal elites as a threat to their global interests: something the New York Times clearly values above journalism.


The New York Times article cannot be characterised as anything other than lying propaganda.


The New York Times is committed to the election of Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States of America. The New York Times knows that Clinton would continue the policies of supporting the interests of finance capital and the multinational corporations; policies which are against the interests of the vast majority of the citizens of America.


The New York Times, just like the corporate media generally, is nothing more than a propaganda organ for the neoliberal, globalist elite.







To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (3)

  1. TomasSISI

    There was a time when newspapers were impartial, or were supposed to be. If the publisher had a favorite party or candidate, he put it in a box on the editorial pages and on the other side the OP-ed which gave a different view than the publisher or editors view. And the New York times is a big player, owning a huge chunk of America’s daily papers. When the NYT speaks, it rattles the cages of every American newspaper. They all follow suit.

    September 01, 2016
    1. stevehayes13

      The corporate media of the west reminds me of nothing so much as Pravda and the rest under the Soviet Union. The significant difference is that Soviet citizens knew how to read between the lines; whereas, the vast majority of people in the west appear to take the west’s propaganda at face value.

      September 02, 2016