Fucking NY Times (and WaPo assholes)

wrath
141

fknnyt

:thinking:

13 Likes
142

Mysterious indeed.

10 Likes
143

This bot is an amazing public service, because you can watch the dissembly in real time. The start of the thread:

And the end:

With a whole lot of bullshit in between.

15 Likes
144
13 Likes
145

maxwellsmart_missed_it_by_that_much

Missed it by that much!

7 Likes
146

Weren’t the vaccines already near enought to phase two when they wrote that? The BionTech was initially formulated a couple of weeks after the gene was sequences. So beginning of March I think.

At this time last year we were looking at autumn this year as a return to normal for the rich North.

4 Likes
147

Kirk: “Scotty, how long to create a vaccine to counter this Klingon virus?”
Scott: “I can have something ready for ye in 13 years.”
Kirk: “You have 13 months.”

5 Likes
148

The table lists several vaccines candidates:

Screen Shot 11
Screen Shot 111328×1354 159 KB

Right, now, the choices in the US are

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/janssen.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/Moderna.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/Pfizer-BioNTech.html

and in other countries, a few otherss are avaialable. What happened to the rest?

(also, I just read the patient information for the dose of vaccine I’m reciving tomorrow:

WHAT IS THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE?
The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is an unapproved vaccine that may prevent COVID-19. There is no FDA-approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19.

The ten year timeframe is for an FDA approved vaccine.

4 Likes
149

The visual shows the distribution of a vaccine as November 2033 under normal circumstances. Since it’s an interactive visual you are able to manipulate all the shortcuts, and yet it still predicts 2024 as the earliest possible year for distribution.

(I think the Times believed, like most of us, that the Orange one would screw this up.)

3 Likes
150
6 Likes
151
8 Likes
152

Weird, it looks like they took down the article. I wonder why??? /s

From the snippets included in the twitter thread you linked, it looked like garbage, and even calling it an “article” or an “essay” was quite a stretch. Does calling out questions and printing the answers, unfiltered and un-inspected or put into any context constitute an article? I would argue not.

This tweet shows a screen shot of the NYT defense where they call it a “story.”

7 Likes
153

Behind the wall, but still seems to be there:

/peeks through the wall… WTF?
/replaces brick, adds more cement.

9 Likes
154

They gave money to Frank Luntz???

2 Likes
155

Yeah, I stopped reading when one of these Trump supporters replied that Trump wasn’t very controversial* and it was all George Floyd’s fault.

*just checked and he used controversial, not divisive (same thing in my mind)

6 Likes
156

Oh, thanks! That’s strange. I have a subscription, and I was searching with the exact title and nothing was coming up. Then did a broader search for “Floyd” and again, this article didn’t show…oh, I see what I did now. I was searching in Editorial, not Opinion.

Ugh, it’s worse than I imagined. He just published the transcript of a focus group run by a repub strategist, and excused himself at the beginning for the lack of fact-checking or analysis because, “That’s not what being in a focus group is about.” Ummm, okay, maybe not while the event is happening, but sure as shit before you publish it…

Here’s one particularly depressing response when asked for a reaction to the phrase, “Black Lives Matter.”

Taylor: I’m a teacher in Columbus. My school’s, like, 99 percent African-Americans. So there was almost, like, a pressure on me that after that if I didn’t show some kind of sympathy towards it. It was almost kind of like, I was viewed as lesser than.
So I would have to have these conversations with my students. And I was so conflicted because I’m just like, OK, we’re focusing in on this. But we don’t even know all the details. But I’m having to have these conversations with my students that are 100 percent gung ho. And I’m like, I’m so torn.
Over the course of this past year, I have grown more and more skeptical and have been very, not paranoid but just very — skeptical is the best word of just what they really, truly stand for, how they use their funds for corrupt leaders. Their mission is not condemning violence in some areas. But then they’ll condemn it in others. It’s like, you can’t have it both ways.
Now I’m to the point where the mention of Black Lives Matter, when I read projects from my students — all the time they focus on things to do with race — I’m just like, I’m done. I’m very much over it.

Shaping future minds, everyone. :woman_facepalming:t2:

11 Likes
157

I think I need to take a moment and sit quietly after reading that.

He’s very much over having to hear the pain and suffering and worry of his students. Poor him.

9 Likes
158

Yeah, imagine that, feeling like you’re being viewed as “lesser than.” I’m sure their Black students have no idea what that is like!
And feeling that way for not having sympathy for racially-driven police brutality, well, that just doesn’t seem fair.
/s

I need a brain sponge to clean it out after reading that.
And the focus group seems like it’s basically checking to see how much the propaganda is working. Gross.

7 Likes
159

As the saying goes, opinion pages really are just glossy asshole jpegs.

1 Like
160

Sorry to be (partially) off topic, but do you know what’s worse the the f*^&^& NY Times? The F&&^%g Irish Times.

10 Likes