> we really must remember that
Do we? Your opinion that is poorly executed doesn't actually mean that it is.
> But we must read what they’ve written as an attempt at controlling the narrative.
And...? God forbid their wanting to control the narrative about... Themselves? I'm not seeing the problem there.
> They’re asking the world to discredit an article that (as you’ve mentioned) hasn’t been published yet. That deserves an extreme amount of scrutiny and skepticism.
But the NYT should be inherently trusted, unless I read your original comment incorrectly.
> How could I possibly defend an unread article? It’s impossible and illogical.
You literally called it "fundamental truth" in your original comment, so I'm actually a bit curious about your answer to your own question.
> I’ve been attempting to illustrate why their own attempt at damage control actually predisposes me to distrust them
Reading your comments, it seems more like a bias in favor of the NYT et al what is predisposing you to distrust them.
Of course, nothing wrong with that. If you feel like they properly represent the truth of your views, not supporting them would be incongruous. But that doesn't mean that someone who disagrees about how well they represent the truth of the matter has to share your opinion. Indeed, sharing your opinion would be incongruous in that case.
> It’s an incredibly amateurish PR move on their part, honestly.
This is not enlightened discourse. Again, just because you think it is doesn't mean that it is. Specially when using vague non-descriptions like "amateurish".
> it’s partly speculation
It's entirely speculation.