WaPo: "Irrefutable" : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...
NYTimes: "Irrefutable and Undeniable" : https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u...
I find it extremely interesting to occasionally reread those knowing what we know now. And nothing has changed, except for now there is significant push to try to censor anything beyond such irrefutable sources.
What an absolute shock. Even though I have the benefit of hindsight and know how the story ends, it is still incredible to read the article and feel the confidence emanating from the journalist. The whole thing has an air of well-researched credibility - the professionalism you would expect from an authoritative source.
Yet it is dead wrong about the facts.
It really makes you wonder what else we hear that is blatantly false but do not question it.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
I‘m not saying I‘m blindly following either sides‘ narrative, but to me there is a clear trustworthyness hierarchy between the narrative of a society where I can still freely read, discuss and criticize these obvious pieces of misinformation (while they stay on the record!) and a society that changes its own narrative every other day and where just mentioning the word „war“ can lock me up in jail for 15 years by now.
That the punishment is not prison but people going after your job (and often succeeding at it, and people thinking such thibgs are ok) doesn't mean the society is free.
Contrast a society where the government executes you for being gay, where it throws you in prison and a society where everyone looks at you funny and your family disowns you. The degree of coercion differs in all, but are gay people fully free in any?
This no longer describes US society. We are better than Russia, but fall short of this description. Google actively delists information, including publications and statements from the US government and private citizens.
This extends beyond "misinformation" to categorical topics which citizens are not allowed to learn about
I mean that's a common refute. It wasn't news, it says opinion. Would you defend Fox News with that same argument? Also, opinion is just as curated as the news. You don't seen any editorials by David Duke on the NYT.