fun guy

12mo

the issue isn't solely about the NYT sourcing information from a known white supremacist. its journalistic malpractice to sanitize Cremiux/Jordan Lasker by describing him in such an obfuscatory way + the articles entire premise is a lame nothing burger. its essentially ragebait you'd expect from the NYP - "Mamdani lied about being Black to try and get into Columbia". its not like there was some substantial information about Mamdani that the NYT HAD to publish, it was just a pathetic smear attempt. lastly, as someone else pointed out, the NYT refused to publish leaked details about Trumps campaign last year because of "ethical guidelines surrounding hacked materials". obviously theres no "ethical standards" for such information when its about Mamdani

krishna bound

12mo

"its journalistic malpractice"

no its not? it'd be journalistic malpractice to name him despite him being the intermediary for the information and that being their terms. once again this is how the profession works - you make concessions based on the allowance by the intermediary to send you the information even if they were not the source of the tip. this is a big deal and why there was a lot of uproar in the past over people like Taylor Lorenz who promised anonymity to intermediaries but then published the name anyway.
journalistic malpractice is not the same as moral disagreement with the source. they (based on the reporter's tweets for the story) didn't know what the full extent of exact information was before they accessed it, that's half the point of why it likely ended up published as such w/o the original materials. the NYT didn't do the exchange of info for the single point of comment, they did it for full access to the hacked columbia documents altogether. once again the primary criticism here is that guy who gave it to them has dangerous views.

fun guy

12mo

"some guy on twitter with questionable views" is a funny way of describing Jordan Lasker, the white supremacist race scientist who actively advances eugenics, but maybe not as bad as the NYT authors describing him as an "academic who opposes affirmative action and often writes about IQ and race". its 100% journalistic malpractice

fun guy

12mo

journalistic malpractice is not the same as moral disagreement with the source

I didn't say it was. I think its journalistic malpractice to describe a loud and proud white supremacist as simply an "academic and opponent of affirmative action". That's unacceptable "journalism". NYT editors seem to agree, since they added an addendum saying that Cremieux "also writes about IQ and race". Are you seriously suggesting that this dude wouldn't share information with NYT if they described him in slightly more detail? He is proud to be a eugenicist, thats not the reason the authors withheld information about his views. Comparing this to Taylor Lorenz makes zero sense.

the NYT didn't do the exchange of info for the single point of comment, they did it for full access to the hacked columbia documents altogether

Yes, they made a concession with a race scientist in order to write a pathetic smear article that should've never been published. again, the NYT has previously stated that hacked materials went against their editorial standards, so what gives?

once again the primary criticism here is that guy who gave it to them has dangerous views.

Are you being intentionally dense?

K DOG 99

12mo

They going after him for eating with his hands

krishna bound

12mo

Are you seriously suggesting that this dude wouldn't share information with NYT if they described him in slightly more detail?

Yes? That is very literally what he told them objectively.

the NYT has previously stated that hacked materials went against their editorial standards

Not true, you can read their guidelines here: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html - their stance is primarily about balancing legality with public interest, and also is primarily concerned with the materials themselves rather than the information brought by such material unless such is covered by NDA or government-controlled access.

Are you being intentionally dense?

There's clear dishonesty here over what you're angry about. The NYT got information and deemed it worthy of public interest and then published it under their typical editorial standards. There's really only three things you can be upset about here:
A) who they got the information from
B) that the information is about Mamdani
C) that you don't feel the information was worth publishing

A is literally a non-factor. That is just how journalism works. If you wanted them to have a giant paragraph after citing the source where they said "btw the guy who did this is a massive racist and white supremacist" then the guy would sue the NYT and probably win. There are actual laws surrounding this on top of ethical standards. The guy does not claim to be a white supremacist or neo-nazi. It's not like they interviewed a self-identified one like Richard Spencer and then didn't disclose it. Also, as mentioned, this happens all the time. The reason I cite Taylor Lorenz is because she is an example of actually doing the aforementioned and thus being blacklisted from half the industry,

For B & C I highly doubt you would be as pissed off if this same situation happened but it was about a state senator. Mamdani is a public figure and therefore anything recorded on paper can be considered a matter of public interest regardless of agreeability about the "scoop". The NYT did not know what was in the documents before arranging with the intermediary. If t your actual issue here is you don't want them writing something which could be perceived as negative about him, then just say that. The way this came out is not "collaboration with a white supremacist" no matter how much you want to be true.

fun guy

12mo

its crazy that you wrote all this just to be an annoying contrarian defending the fact that the NYT whitewashed a race scientist to publish a bogus smear article with no real substance. you got it

fun guy

12mo

its crazy that you wrote all this just to be an annoying contrarian defending the fact that the NYT whitewashed a race scientist to publish a bogus smear article with no real substance. you got it

krishna bound

12mo

don't get pissed off and change the topic because you're blatantly wrong and can't handle it lol

fun guy

12mo

everyone is wrong except you

krishna bound

12mo

Are you seriously suggesting that this dude wouldn't share information with NYT if they described him in slightly more detail?

Yes? That is very literally what he told them objectively.

the NYT has previously stated that hacked materials went against their editorial standards

Not true, you can read their guidelines here: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html - their stance is primarily about balancing legality with public interest, and also is primarily concerned with the materials themselves rather than the information brought by such material unless such is covered by NDA or government-controlled access.

Are you being intentionally dense?

There's clear dishonesty here over what you're angry about. The NYT got information and deemed it worthy of public interest and then published it under their typical editorial standards. There's really only three things you can be upset about here:
A) who they got the information from
B) that the information is about Mamdani
C) that you don't feel the information was worth publishing

A is literally a non-factor. That is just how journalism works. If you wanted them to have a giant paragraph after citing the source where they said "btw the guy who did this is a massive racist and white supremacist" then the guy would sue the NYT and probably win. There are actual laws surrounding this on top of ethical standards. The guy does not claim to be a white supremacist or neo-nazi. It's not like they interviewed a self-identified one like Richard Spencer and then didn't disclose it. Also, as mentioned, this happens all the time. The reason I cite Taylor Lorenz is because she is an example of actually doing the aforementioned and thus being blacklisted from half the industry,

For B & C I highly doubt you would be as pissed off if this same situation happened but it was about a state senator. Mamdani is a public figure and therefore anything recorded on paper can be considered a matter of public interest regardless of agreeability about the "scoop". The NYT did not know what was in the documents before arranging with the intermediary. If t your actual issue here is you don't want them writing something which could be perceived as negative about him, then just say that. The way this came out is not "collaboration with a white supremacist" no matter how much you want to be true.

krishna bound

12mo

glad you also acknowledge it

fun guy

12mo

yes, i know you like to carry water for white supremacists, like the time you blamed Africans and Caribbeans for the rise of "black fatigue" discourse online

ragedsycokiller

12mo

Wait Netanyahu can nominate someone for a Nobel Peace Prize?

vayla

11mo

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/06/nyregion/trump-nyc-mayor-cuomo-adams-mamdani.html

vayla

11mo

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/06/nyregion/trump-nyc-mayor-cuomo-adams-mamdani.html