Hacker News Reader

Alternatively, one can think critically on a case-by-case basis, instead of either trusting nothing at all or giving uncritical trust based on a source.

> one can think critically on a case-by-case basis

That's easy to say. If all of your sources are poisoned with narratives and misrepresentation (in one way or another), you basically don't have any anchor to make proper judgment.

Why would I trust nothing? the NYT isn't a monolithic actor with a singular mind. what you propose is meaningless.

The NYT does run, centrally, what they call "narratives" which I think is what people are referencing here. This has apparently been in practice for quite some time but only has been a point of discussion as people leave.

> the NYT isn't a monolithic actor with a singular mind.

Isn't there an editor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

https://www.historyonthenet.com/walter-duranty-new-york-time...