Yet they must've known it all long. The way to attack the fakery is to fact check even the opinion pieces because they usually contain statements presented as facts. The New Yorker has always done this, even with the cartoons. Let's hope the rest of the media follows. And we as readers should push for it.

You used to see it primarily in their international desk, which is less subject to scrutiny since most other staffers are usually unfamiliar with overseas politics.

But during the '90s, I began seeing it in their coverage of the Clintons - which was more often than not just one step above the Weekly Standard in its viciouness toward them. The Clintons were, as far the New York Times, always presumed guilty.

Then, of course, we had Judith Miller. That was the last straw.

Yes, they're better than Murdoch mouthpieces like the Post - but not by much anymore.

They will simply drive away rational people with an interest in facts and in reasonable analysis, but they still won't attract the sort of RW readers who would like a propagandists like this climate-change denier. Those RW readers consider the NYT to be the enemy and completely irredeemable, so they won't suddenly start reading or subscribing to the paper just because the bosses have added a few of the insane RW clown posse to their stable of op ed writers.

They keep going like this, and there won't be much left that's fit to print except the crossword puzzles.

BTW, his DU name is, appropriately, Puzzler.

We're a talented group, we are.

It's to avoid becoming an echo chamber, where only the approved topics and views are permitted, so that the readership reads only those things that are approved by one particular socio-political tendency.

That kind of thing is toxic, as can been seen by its overall effect on the body politic.

The point is, nobody thinks critically about what they already believe. When the scientific establishment in Kopernik's and Galileo's days--we'll ignore the pope--objected to their overturning of the Aristotelian worldview, they weren't actively engaged in critical thinking of what they had already accepted as truth. This was a problem. It was blindness. But it's human blindness, because it's what we all do.

Feynman's point is well taken: In science, the first thing you have to do is be skeptical yourself. Being skeptical of others is natural. The easiest person to delude--whether it's initial delusion or just rejecting data that creates cognitive dissonance--is oneself.

The best thing a dyed-in-the-wool conservative can have happen to him is be exposed to a thinking, self-critical, introspective and articulate progressive. The best thing that a progressive can have happen to him is be exposed to the same kind of conservative. However, both take incredible pains to form stereotypes and then avoid anything that might challenge those stereotypes.

If such a thing were to happen in America, you might see extreme polarization in Congress so that minority viewpoints are ignored by both sides, and important decisions that affect all the population put in place by a bare majority, with the attitude on both sides that of course it's proper and right to shove it down the other's throat. Trust in the political system would decline, Congress would prove ineffectual, and at some point you might even see mainstream politicals marginalized while marginal groups are centralized in politics, leading to the ascendancy of candidates that would challenge either traditional liberal or conservative views. Heck, one or both such extreme candidates might even win the nomination of a major party, and one might even make it to the White House.

At the risk of sounding oh-so-1st century, or 19th century if you insist on a later source, a house divided cannot stand.

i agree with everything you say here BUT and except this...

"The point is, nobody thinks critically about what they already believe."

Democrats usually try to! I do my homework. When i decided the consensus among scientists was that global climate change was a reality, i didn't and won't look back. Sometimes, you do your research, make your determination and that's that. If some astounding new data (and it's always good to look at new data) confirms that it was actually the space aliens that created our planetary issues, i might give it another look-see... but otherwise i believe it. Because i have multiple trusted sources confirming this for me. Period....... ..........Now turn that around and look at how someone on the other side would see different information in the same way. They have multiple "trusted sources" (Fox, Breitbart, Hannity, Infowars, etc) telling them the same thing so they know it's true... they don't want to hear about any other perspective. They've accepted that what they've been told is true... how could it not be? They heard it from at least 3 sources...

That being said, my personal beliefs continue to evolve... from omnivore to vegan to vegetarian back to omnivore. Independent to Democrat to Non-Affiliated to Democrat. Etcetera. It's important to be just as critical of one's own self and decisions as we are of others'. It's not free thinking otherwise.



K&R

Wow--lays it all out--crystal clear solution.

If the 'Murican media followed these guidelines, this country would be in a far better place.

Of course, faux and flush deliberately want to peddle falsehoods and propaganda.

But the NYT should do better.

Not holding my breath.