No I’m making that claim that the title to this post has the world’s New York Times in the title and you’re deciding you want to have a different conversation, which is fine, but why do you gotta hijack someone else’s thread to do it? Make your own post and do it there.
No. Once again, the root post of this chain is, in it’s entirety “>opinion columnist”. Your response is that NYT does this to prevent echo chambers. My response is to object, not to the NYT part, but to the to prevent echo chambers part.
You mean “launder shit they couldn’t in a million years justify publishing otherwise”?
This was also an editorial: https://workingclasshistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/02.03-irrefutable-Washington-Post.jpg
I’m confused, this is an article from the Washington Post?
You are confused: it’s an editorial from the Washington Post.
Ok, but isn’t the OP about the NYT?
The root comment of this chain, to which you responded to, is, in it’s entirety:
It does not specify a paper. Nor is the practice of employing columnists for opinion laundering limited to the NYT.
Sure, but the context of the post is NYT. Feel free to start your own thread about the WP I guess?
No, the context is opinion columns. Or are you making the claim that NYT, specifically, does not engage in the practice, unlike WaPo?
No I’m making that claim that the title to this post has the world’s New York Times in the title and you’re deciding you want to have a different conversation, which is fine, but why do you gotta hijack someone else’s thread to do it? Make your own post and do it there.
No. Once again, the root post of this chain is, in it’s entirety “>opinion columnist”. Your response is that NYT does this to prevent echo chambers. My response is to object, not to the NYT part, but to the to prevent echo chambers part.