THREAD. I've been studying how the New York Times uses sources. If you look at many of its articles together, something disturbing emerges: NYT relies on police and corporate sources to subtly shape how we see social problems and solutions. I try my best to lay it out below.
What do you notice?
— Alec Karakatsanis (@equalityAlec) April 8, 2022
\u201cPolice officials.\u201d
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Professor
\u201cthe Police department\u201d
\u201cthe police department\u201d
\u201cofficials\u201d
Chief of detectives
-store owner
— Alec Karakatsanis (@equalityAlec) February 28, 2022
\u201claw enforcement officials and business owners\u201d
\u201cofficials\u201d
-NYPD
-\u201csome workers\u201d
-\u201claw enforcement officials.\u201d
-eric adams
-legislators
-business owners
-NYPD
-owner
-\u201cmany small business owners\u201d
-owner
-store worker
-DA
-Legal aid
-Store workers
-\u201cAuthorities\u201d
— Alec Karakatsanis (@equalityAlec) January 22, 2022
-LAPD Captain
-\u201cThe police\u201d
-LAPD Captain (twice more)
-Railroad corporation (twice)
-Railroad corp. spokesperson
-Association of American Railroads
-LAPD Captain
-Asst. prof. of "marketing"
-Railroad corp.
-Railroad spokesperson
-DA
-LAPD Captain (5 more times)
Here are the sources NYT chose to educate readers, in order:
— Alec Karakatsanis (@equalityAlec) January 4, 2022
-Spokesperson for cop union
-Lawyer for cop (humanizing, defending him)
-Person mentored by the cop
-New person mentored by the cop
-AG
-Professor (former cop)
-Lawyer for family
-Lawyer for cop (again, twice more)
-Who benefits from their point of view being presented as news?
-Was anyone with an opposing viewpoint critical of the punishment bureaucracy included?
-How did the reporter choose which voices to quote and which to ignore?
-Where in the article were any sources challenging the narrative put forward?
-Did the reporter include any journalistic skepticism for claims made by police, or note whether the source has a history of dishonesty?
More from Category pdfmakerapp grab this readwiseio save thread threader compile summarize
It\u2019s worth repeating. A mom drove there. Got handcuffed. Got out of handcuffs. Hopped a fence. Went inside the school and walked out with her two kids. All while 19 officers waited outside the classroom where the gunman was. #UvaldePolice #Uvalde
— Jessica McMaster (@JessMcMasterKC) May 27, 2022
You May Also Like
RT-PCR corona (test) scam
Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
4/10
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) October 22, 2020
...indication, first of all that testing for a (single) respiratory virus is done outside of surveillance systems or need for specific therapy, but even so the lack of consideration of Ct, symptoms and clinical findings when interpreting its result. https://t.co/gHH6kwRdZG
2/12
It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
6/10
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) October 22, 2020
The neither validated nor standardised hypersensitive RT-PCR test / Ct 35-45 for SARS-CoV-2 is abused to mislabel (also) other diseases, especially influenza, as COVID-19.https://t.co/AkFIfTCTkS
3/12
The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu
External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.https://t.co/mbNY8bdw1p pic.twitter.com/OQBD4grMth
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) November 29, 2020
4/12
Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID
Thread web\u2b06\ufe0f\u2b07\ufe0f
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) December 16, 2020
The fabrication of the "asymptomatic (super) spreader" is the coronation of the total nons(ci)ense in the belief system of #CoronasWitnesses.
Asymptomatic transmission 0.7%; 95% CI 0%-4.9% - could well be 0%!https://t.co/VeZTzxXfvT
5/12
Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
8/8
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) March 24, 2020
By the way, who the f*** created this obviously (almost) worldwide definition of #CoronaDeath?
This is not only medical malpractice, this is utterly insane!https://t.co/FFsTx4L2mw