The Times has been blocked repeatedly, maybe even semi-permanently, in China. It gets blocked in other countries too, IIRC.
In the U.S., the Times published Chelsea Manning's leaked State Dept documents, it broke the story on Hilary Clinton's email sever, it reported the Wikileaks' DNC emails for months up to the US presidential election, and now it aggressively goes after Trump. While it's imperfect, I don't see which part of the establishment it so strongly supports.
>While it's imperfect, I don't see which part of the establishment it so strongly supports.
The State Department. NYT is vital in fabricating the history of conflicts and internal problems that have ever affected the United States.
to name a few : Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, the War on Drugs, the Indochina wars, Cuba, Mexico, outside-of-country extradition, continual abuse and outright breaking of UN laws and sanctions, etc.
That's not even mentioning their (the NYT) history of character assassination with regards to civil rights leaders, activists, authors, speakers, and alternative thinkers.
...OR you get the Chomsky treatment, and they pretend that you don't exist for a few decades.
I didn't bother with citations, there are plenty to read through with just a cursory search engine query, but since I already invoked the name of the beast, i'll let him tell you about NYT[0].
NYT's is systematically biased in who or what it chooses to illuminate for the public to digest. Don't be surprised when they do good by you -- it's all character building -- just like this news that they're embracing tor.
.onion is not for sites being blocked in China, you can just use tor and access the nytimes.com web site from there. .onion is for websites that get their domain confiscated by their domain providers or the feds, very unlikely to happen to the NYT. See what happened to sites such as the pirate bay or more recently the neo-nazi site dailystormer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Stormer#Site_hosting...
I think it's more that he'd prefer that the media didn't cite "unverified" dossiers that they sourced from Buzzfeed [0], which were produced by a source with ties to the DNC [1][2].
notably: it's not the GOP the organization that initial funded the oppo, but a private news org with conservative leanings. and the FBI did not fund the dossier, but were provided it during its creation. (side note: who cares)
When it comes to corroboration: I would think the special investigation is good enough evidence that the claims of Russian cooperation are being taken seriously, no? Significant is a weasel word but there is actual smoke here.
>I would think the special investigation is good enough evidence that the claims of Russian cooperation are being taken seriously, no?
How would you tell the claims being taken seriously from the investigators trying to use the legal system to get dirt on Donald Trump?
At this point, the investigation has been ongoing for around 10 months, and currently they've only found anything on Paul Manafort, who was Trump's campaign manager for a few months.
The charges against Manafort are essentially failing to disclose lobbying for foreign agents, tax evasion, and money laundering [0]. The lobbying was done while Manafort was working for the Podesta Group, which was founded by Hillary Clinton's campaign manager [1].
On a side note, I find it interesting how Wikipedia doesn't have any information on Manafort's involvement with the Podesta Group.
> I'd agree here. There's no reason to discuss politics on HN when there are numerous other places to do so.
HN is a forum about technology and the startup world, let's keep it about that.
The reason most political stories aren't a good fit here isn't that they aren't about tech or startups (both tech and startups overlap with politics quite a bit). It's because they inevitably lead to battles that destroy what HN is for. We can't be both, the same way a park can't be a war zone.
