>NYP is pretty obviously smearing for a major civil event here
What makes this "obviously smearing"?
back
2 comments
1. The sensationalism of the original title. The accusation here is that the candidate’s son introduced a Ukrainian businessman to him. This is hardly a smoking gun evidence against the father doing anything wrong.
2. There is no evidence that the emails are in fact real, and nothing is even offered to that extent.
3. The article does not come from a reputable news source. In fact it comes from a news source with serious damage to it’s reputation.
4. No other major news outlet is picking this story up, further undermining the credibility of the article.
If I was a social media company I wouldn’t want to touch this with a 10 meter pole.
0. Event with high reputation impact potential, just before the election.
Seriously we should have a 4 week quiet period. So people can sort out though all the dirt and make sense of what is real.
This just pushses everyone into sensory overload to blind out any rational thought.
Major news outlets differ greatly on which stories the give attention to based on their biases. And their reputation depends on your personal political bias.
You're asking for evidence the emails are real but no such evidence was demanded when NYT posted findings from what they claim are Trump's financial records.
If you're a social media company, your job isn't to decide what's true or untrue or what is permissible to share or not share. It is to facilitate communication and get out of the way. Instead, we're seeing companies that control the digital public square enact severely biased policies that favor their employee's politics. That's dangerous and unacceptable.
Any attempt to bring information to light that is harmful to the Cathedral is considered smearing.