My colleague @hannahalothman.bsky.social is in Belfast tonight. This is what she’s seen.
www.theguardian.com/politics/liv...
Love getting updates about a war from its participants when both sides are known liars and propagandists!
Sad that I believe Iran over us.
bsky.app/profile/greg...
The trouble is, nobody really believes the US about anything. (Anything.)
this stinks to high heaven
The NYT would be nothing without liberals.
some folks are getting played like a fiddle, rough to see
I worry the LC world is insufficiently mindful of this dynamic.
Yep. This is why I didn’t even bother to offer a link.
This, plus anger = engagement = metrics that look good to the powers that be. We see more and more rage bait as the traditional economic drivers of journalism disappear.
Greg Sargent
Josh Halliday
Depths Explorer 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
Misty the Cat Reads Banned Books
🇨🇦 sophialarkrose.bsky.social
Snowden St.
C.H. Romatowski
Greg Greene (he/him/his)
Susan of Texas
Kate Tuttle
this stinks to high heaven
this stinks to high heaven
this stinks to high heaven
NYT opinion editors publish these types of things *because* progs will tweet angrily about it, which they interpret as, "this writer gets the right people angry, this writer is provocative, this writer gets talked about." Angry tweets only confirm/reward their initial instinct to publish this stuff.
NYT opinion editors publish these types of things *because* progs will tweet angrily about it, which they interpret as, "this writer gets the right people angry, this writer is provocative, this writer gets talked about." Angry tweets only confirm/reward their initial instinct to publish this stuff.
NYT opinion editors publish these types of things *because* progs will tweet angrily about it, which they interpret as, "this writer gets the right people angry, this writer is provocative, this writer gets talked about." Angry tweets only confirm/reward their initial instinct to publish this stuff.
NYT opinion editors publish these types of things *because* progs will tweet angrily about it, which they interpret as, "this writer gets the right people angry, this writer is provocative, this writer gets talked about." Angry tweets only confirm/reward their initial instinct to publish this stuff.
NYT opinion editors publish these types of things *because* progs will tweet angrily about it, which they interpret as, "this writer gets the right people angry, this writer is provocative, this writer gets talked about." Angry tweets only confirm/reward their initial instinct to publish this stuff.
Greg Sargent
Greg Sargent
Greg Sargent
Greg Sargent
Greg Sargent
Greg Sargent
Greg Sargent
Greg Sargent
The easiest way to end up in the NYT Opinion section is to be someone they perceive as “progressive” arguing that progressives actually have to capitulate to the right on x issue
The easiest way to end up in the NYT Opinion section is to be someone they perceive as “progressive” arguing that progressives actually have to capitulate to the right on x issue
The easiest way to end up in the NYT Opinion section is to be someone they perceive as “progressive” arguing that progressives actually have to capitulate to the right on x issue
The easiest way to end up in the NYT Opinion section is to be someone they perceive as “progressive” arguing that progressives actually have to capitulate to the right on x issue
The easiest way to end up in the NYT Opinion section is to be someone they perceive as “progressive” arguing that progressives actually have to capitulate to the right on x issue
Alan Elrod
Alan Elrod
Alan Elrod
Alan Elrod
Alan Elrod
So @nytopinion.nytimes.com ?
Why the hell was Zaid Jilani, who has ZERO professional expertise or experience on abortion, given space to write about it in the New York Times?
It's not just wrong, it's insulting.
We've won doing everything he says not to do.
We don't polls. We have actual votes.
