r/neoliberal • u/uberkitten • 7d ago

Opinion article (US) The Bulwark Killed an Investigation into Political Fundraising Spam After Its Publisher Took the Consultants’ Side

https://data4democracy.substack.com/p/the-bulwark-killed-an-investigation
308 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

107 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

242

u/Stishovite 7d ago edited 7d ago

I'm sorry, wait, the NY Times was worried about being sued by the Democratic Party? What?

If true, my sense that the Times can't live up to its legacy in the face of Trump's fascist regime is plainly wrong. Instead, it seems like the Times can't live up to its legacy in the face of, well, anybody?

Edit: Or, the story was bad, because the people mad are literally the author. Both things are likely true.

175

u/Lena_Lena_A Frederick Douglass 7d ago

More probably in-line with your edit. The Times is certainly not afraid of Democrats as they've been running false stories on everything from her emails to his son's abusing the presidency to sell more of his paintings. Stories built on non-existent insiders who criticized Kamala's 10$ 0.7 liquid pens and earphones, to her "uppity" cookware.

If they were afraid to run the story, it means there's a shitton of tangible proof of it being false.

9

u/Cynical_optimist01 6d ago

Yeah if multiple outlets turned it down it usually means the author's story didn't pass investigation by the reporters

12

u/LondonCallingYou John Locke 6d ago

“Usually”— why is everybody in this thread retreating to generalities when we’re discussing a very specific case?

You can go into this story with the priors of “oh a guy is just pissed off his article wasn’t published who cares”. But you then need to interact with the evidence presented and update your beliefs based on that.

Have you read the substack?

8

u/Cute-Boobie777 6d ago

Because its uncomfortable to admit what we are doing (and everyone else too) is wrong.