I donāt care if heās a serial killer, heās still entitled to due process. Without that, they can accuse any of us of doing anything at any time and ship us off to CECOT.
Precisely. Every time they produce new āevidenceā the shouted response should be āthen bring him back and present this in court!ā
If even half of the āevidenceā theyāve presented in the court of public opinion is true, then theyāve got an open-and-shut case against him. [narrator: that means itās all bullshit]
What disturbs me as much as the NYT platforming them are the BlueSky posts amplifying/spreading these opinions. It occurred to me while reading this one:
Information about the authors of these opinions should be front and center - not alluded to, buried, or left out completely. IMO, this is a disservice to the readers who turn to alternative sources to avoid clicking on content from the NYT. The authors of the complaints put a lot of effort into refuting excerpts to confirm that a published opinion is terrible. Readers have no idea who wrote it so they can avoid additional terrible takes from those writers in the future. The only way to discover that is to click the link.
It makes me question if the folks complaining about the NYT truly oppose that outlet. The stock (under NYT) doesnāt seem to be hurting at all (in comparison to say, Tesla or Target). Just like X, people wonāt stop going there - keeping the platform going and the profits flowing.
Normally, this thread is about politics, but this is really interesting. There have been several stories about Cooglerās contract with the studio for Sinners, with a lot of industry analysts predicting this contract will destroy the studios. This article, in spite of the fact that this is The NY Times, does a good job calling this out for the bs it is.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/03/opinion/sinners-ryan-coogler-devil-contract.html?unlocked_article_code=1.EU8.FPpZ.ihh_UQRU3sRB&smid=url-share
Yep. Unmitigated.
Because it was written by Jonathan Turley.
Didnāt know who he is and pulled up the Jimbopedia entry on him.
Huh. There are quite a lot of pieces that donāt really seem to fit together. Okay, I only took a quick glance, but just what is this guy? So far I donāt see a coherent picture.
Is this some sort of libertarian world view cobbled together from the bits of politics/legal theories/philosophies/history/etc he personally likes, disregarding the corresponding bits of ////etc he doesnāt like? Which seems like a luxury not everybody can afford.
Or is he just that annoying kid from debate club whoād argue for or against anything whatsoever, just as long heād win and prove heās the best and brightest in the room, who grew up but hasnāt changed?
Bit of both?
And published in The Hill.
I now regret giving that shitty conservative site (and writer) a click, and wish the link had been identified as such to prevent that.
I know that he used to be on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and as the resident Constitutional scholar he was extremely critical of the GOP, Bush, and the invasion of Iraq post 9/11. However, he seemed to later lose his shit during the second Obama term for reasons I have yet to understand.
Must have been the woke mind virus or something.
Sorry! Will try to do so in the future!
Probably just the money. Tons of it is available for seemingly credible pundits on the right. In Doppelganger, Naomi Klein charts well that form of betrayal in her titular counterpart, Naomi Wolf.