The most influential news source in the world is the New York Times. Every day, hundreds of newspapers and news stations around the world follow its lead. After all, isn't the Times the gold standard of journalism? Investigative reporter Ashley Rindsberg reveals the truth in this eye-opening video.
???? PragerU is experiencing severe censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to https://www.prageru.com/ to watch our videos free from censorship!
SUBSCRIBE ???? https://www.prageru.com/join/
???? Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app!
Download for Apple iOS ? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/prageru/id1115115779
Download for Android ? https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cappital.prageru
To view the FACTS & SOURCES and Transcript, visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/can-you-trust-the-ny-times
???? Join PragerU's text list! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
SHOP! ???? Love PragerU? Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/
Script:
The most influential news source in the world is the New York Times.
Every day, hundreds of newspapers, and TV and cable news stations around the world follow its lead—literally.
Why wouldn't they?
Isn't the Times the gold standard of journalism? The place where the facts of the story are presented without bias or agenda?
Actually, the answer is no.
When it comes to episodes of major historical significance, the New York Times has routinely failed to provide the public with unbiased journalism. Instead, it has chosen to manufacture false narratives—often with catastrophic consequences.
It has done this in service of its own financial and ideological interests.
This goes back, at least, to 1932.
That year there was a terrible famine in the Ukraine. Between 5 and 7 million Ukranians starved to death. The disaster had nothing to do with bad weather and everything to do with the ruthless regime of the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.
Walter Duranty, the Times foreign correspondent in Moscow, knew all of this and covered it up. In fact, his reports flatly denied there was any famine at all.
The American media took its lead from the Times star reporter. So did America's political elite, including newly-elected President Franklin Roosevelt who personally met with Duranty to discuss 'the situation' in the Soviet Union.
Duranty had another admirer, Josef Stalin. The brutal tyrant had nothing but praise for the New York Times man: 'You have done a good job in your reporting of the USSR… because you try to tell the truth about our country.'
Had Duranty exposed the facts about Stalin and the famine, the American people would have better understood the true nature of the Soviet Union. Instead, many were fooled.
When it came to reporting on the persecution of Jews in Germany leading up to World War II, the Times was even worse. Initially, the paper refused to publish reports on the concentration camps. And when it finally did, those reports were relegated to the back pages. Again, the Times set the tone for the rest of the American media. If the Times didn't think the genocide of the Jews was a major story, it must not be one.
In 1957, the Times flipped this script. It took a minor story—a rebellion in Cuba—and turned it into a major one. In the process, it helped destroy an entire country.
New York Times reporter, Herbert Matthews, tracked down an all-but-defeated rebel named Fidel Castro at his mountain hideout.
From this interview came a flurry of front-page New York Times articles hailing Castro as Cuba's democratic savior. The Times transformed the down-and-out Marxist revolutionary into an international sensation. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Times made Castro. Without its assistance, the Cuban revolution would have almost certainly failed.
A very similar phenomenon played out a few years later in Southeast Asia. This time instead of making a hero out of a villain, the Times made a villain out of a hero.
With the paper's blessing, a brash, young Times reporter, David Halberstam, decided that South Vietnamese elected leader Ngo Dinh Diem was a murderous madman. Caught up in the prevailing leftist notion that the American war effort was immoral, and that the North Vietnamese communists were the real freedom fighters, Halberstam wrote piece after piece designed to bring down Diem. The one that did it was his reporting that the Diem government had massacred 30 Buddhist monks who were protesting Diem's policies.
Only it didn't happen. Halberstam manufactured it out of whole cloth, basing it on anonymous sources and rumors.
When a United Nations team later investigated the killings, they found that all the 'murdered' Buddhists were alive and well.
For the complete transcript visit visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/can-you-trust-the-ny-times
They also said that in the 1960s a woman named Kitty Genovese was murdered in front of her apartment building, and that 38 people watched her being murdered from their apartment, but no one called the cops. However this is completely false, it's true that she was murdered, but in reality many people called the cops, it just took them hours to respond. The really sad part is that many psychology courses still teaches the false narrative that no one called the cops, and use it as an example of the Bystander Effect.
Honestly, a ton of stuff taught in psychology courses have either very little evidence behind it, or false evidence behind it. The Stanford Prison Experiment is another example, it's taught in psychology courses that the guards just turned evil simply because the had power, but this is completely false. In reality, the doctor running the experiment told the guards to be aggressive, but of course he neglected to mention that part when he publicized the experiment.
Stockholm Syndrome it yet another example, where is taught that people in a hostage situation will identify with their captors. However the entre basis for this theory comes from bank employees being held hostage where the cops didn't care about the safety of the hostages and the cops deflected any criticism by claiming the employees had identified with their captors.
These are all the examples I can think of at the moment, but I'm sure many more exist which i just haven't thought of.
@SChen-ei8gx Says:
The NY Times is 💩
@JohnWilliams-channel Says:
The NYT may not get everything right, but you assholes get everything wrong.
@aShaiguy Says:
Very relevant post oct-7
@rudigereichler4112 Says:
Yes, you can trust it is a propaganda outled which belongs in the toilet.
@WhiskeySam1 Says:
So, if Satan needed his own newspaper…
@leonardmacaulay9833 Says:
Much like the coverage of dead Arabs has been in the MSM today.
@legotechnic1314 Says:
Short answer: No.
Long answer: This entire video.
@stevehicks8944 Says:
Sheds light on why so many call the newspaper “The New York Slimes”.
@thomascoleman8300 Says:
How are they still in business? Why are you buying the paper and supporting businesses that advertise with them.
@rphb5870 Says:
I trust that NY Times tells me what CIA wants me to know
@JumpingJack6 Says:
Can you trust the NY Times? Can a cow jump over the moon?
@dejavu9605 Says:
The part about Vietnam is true! I was born in Vietnam after the war ended. I have never met a Vietnamese who knew anything about the war that spoke highly of the rebels from the north. We call them commies. Lives were turned upside down after Americans left. My parents’ generation regard 1975 as the year they lost their country.
@fromhigherground4272 Says:
I don’t completely trust Prager U either.
@JuniorDiamond5360 Says:
I like New York times, its’ paper for wrapping fresh fish or meat, 😅
@yurichtube1162 Says:
Never knew NYT ruined the lives of millions and altered human history. The damages have never been undone.
@joecampana3398 Says:
Bravo 👏!
@jkmerriwether9919 Says:
Not to mention their reiterating of the Bush administration's lies that led us to invade Iraq.
@narlimarli7406 Says:
Not just no, but HELLS NO. Any publication that would suppress the human annihilation of a certain race of people or pushing a hoax against the American people, doesn't deserve any consideration or accolades
@fredweesly6209 Says:
I am fairly sure that during the inter war period that most journalists, except one, didnt know anything about the famines.
@THATMOFODIRT Says:
They’ve shot themselves in the foot, just like most MSM. They’re a tabloid.
@WebberAerialImaging Says:
Not even good as the Toilet Paper that it is
@willemmcalpine9040 Says:
never
@MLJ7956 Says:
I didn't nickname NYT 'The New York Slimes' for nothing (in my opinion) 😆....
@strongmermaid4651 Says:
Thank you for making and posting your work and sharing it with us
@luigiferretti2705 Says:
Why, is it still the most influential?
@thomasdaily4363 Says:
I'm sorry, is that a serious question?
@evanhce135 Says:
Seriously? You’re cherry picking a few examples through history when the Times was wrong? Sure, the NYT hasn’t gotten 110% of everything they’ve said right, but they are by far a more reliable and factual news source than pretty much every other. Seriously, what is a better news source? I bet you can’t name any.
@hgff69 Says:
Currently, NYT, Washington Post, Bloomberg, CNN, Al Jazeera and BBC are destroying the image of India as breeding ground for Islamophobia where we non-Muslims are overcoming Love Jihad, while shutting down everything about killing of non-Salafi Muslims and non-Muslims in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh and suppression of Xinjiang and Tibet by China
@blasterblade02 Says:
Funny how PragerU The "Journalists" who are run and funded by Nazi's thinks they can verify other news networks
@holdencobb8353 Says:
Because pragerU is a trustworthy and reputable source...
@60-second-HACKS Says:
Can we trust Prager U?
@kaydenchan7093 Says:
Thanks for proving your hypocrisy!
@tavuzzipust7887 Says:
Absolutely not.
@uddipanchaudhury3023 Says:
New York Times also supports terrorists in Kashmir.
@jonachtounet3137 Says:
Why would you believe this guy no one knows about saying random stuff with no sources that could be 100% made up... plus even if you still don't trust NYT well you don't have to trust this guy either
@dovidell Says:
not even fit to use as emergency toilet paper in the out house
@koldonn1111 Says:
You have a point... But can I also trust YOU?
Not really, lmfao.
@aaronfarkas6890 Says:
In the past year, Pulitzer Prize winner, Glenn Greenwald (for his reporting on the Edward Snowden/National Security Agency), described the political bias at The NY Times,
as being, “hyperpartisan”.
That, says it all.
@kevinclarke1222 Says:
To answer your title question : No !
@arthurwright8827 Says:
Not any more. They must have changed something in the way the paper is made. It’s gotten so bad my parrot refuses to crap on it!
@ashutoshsrivastava3618 Says:
MY DEAR USA CITIZEN IF YOU ARE LISTENING TO THIS YOU ARE THE RESISTANCE. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT ALMOST IN ALL CASES THERE IS A SIMILARITY THAT NY TIMES IS SUPPORTING THE COMMUNIST ALWAYS AND DEMOCRATIC SETUP HAS ALWAYS FAILED TO ARREST THE FALSE NARRATIVE.
@michielo5162 Says:
Woah... NYT not publishing about the holocaust because there weren't enough facts, publishing about cuba because it was a threat to the stability of the USA, almost like they are doing their job!
NYT following the money... almost like PragerU!
@brettrandolph6531 Says:
If PragerU is willing to make an attack-stance video on immoral news agencies like the NYT—could you also supply us with resources on how to better-discern between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ news? I don’t believe there is any one news source that functions perfectly in alignment with the truth. But I would like to know how to healthily challenge particular articles and ideas, and factually discern that the information in them is false or bias. Nonetheless, great video!
@marc-elianbegin9221 Says:
If your issue is with The 1619 Project, the make an argument against it. Attempting character assassination of the NYT is not a very courageous way to win an argument. I’m sure you can do better. Then there would be something to debate about.
@kaelkross7036 Says:
It's not a failure by the New York Times, necessarily. Fault the other news sources and the people consuming their content for not fact checking what the New York Times was writing.
Back then you can say there weren't a whole lot of other news sources but you can't say that now. If you believe the lies now, it's your own fault.
@patrickc3419 Says:
Calling the New York Times trustworthy is like calling CNN unbiased, SNL funny, The Olive Garden Italian, & Elizabeth Warren Native American.
@An-ss5lv Says:
Ngo Dinh Diem might not be a villain but never be a hero. In South Vietnam, the believers of Buddhism were estimated to account for from 70 to 90% of the population, but Ngo Dinh Diem headed a government biased towards Catholicism in public service, politics promotion, as well as allocation of land, business favors, and tax concessions. Many were refused promotion if they do not converted their religion, firearms for village's self- defense to repel Vietcong were only distributed to Catholics. In 1956, Diem passed Oder 46 against ones who held belief in Buddhism, in which allowed executive order to practice punishment on '' individuals who are considered dangerous to the nation security''. In May 1963, the time of Buddha's birthday, Diem invoked Decree Number 10 to prohibit the display of religious flag. This action provoked distress among civilians, many protests against Diem's government were staged, first in Hue, then in Saigon, and spread all over South Vietnam. Diem had used force to respond to the on going demonstrations : pouring chemicals on the head of praying Buddhists, blockading Buddhist pagodas and shrines, sending protestors to the concentration camps. On June 11, monks Thich Quang Duc burned himself at a Saigon intersection to express his disapproval of Diem's policies. However, in response to this event, Madame Nhu, the first lady of Diem's brother, said "Let them burn and we shall clap our hands" .
You can google The Buddhist crisis 1963 in Vietnam for more information.
My style of writing may bear some resemblance to the article from wikipedia because my source of vocabularies, grammars and structures are not really good enough to expressing my knowledge properly, so I referred a lot from it.
By the way, I'm Vietnamese and just have a history lesson about America - Vietnam war this morning then I come across this video. I do not say that The New York Times were right about that article but Diem actually involved in many attacks on Buddhists , he was not that innocent, and even not that hero.
LATEST COMMENTS