The New York Times has come under fire for an absurd hit-piece on Elon Musk which suggests that because he "grew up in a bubble of white privilege" in South Africa, he's just fine with racist or other 'toxic' content on Twitter, which they frame as 'unchecked speech.'
After the 'paper of record' began catching flack for their race-baiting smear (and perhaps after a call from Musk's legal team), they stealth-edited the article to add distance and suggest that musk may or may not have been influenced by South Africa's history (but either way he's a white guy who grew up in South Africa 'so make of that what you will').
Some editing going on this afternoon https://t.co/3kQSgPW0Y5 pic.twitter.com/SGFQLNJIO9
— Tom Gara (@tomgara) May 5, 2022
No editor’s note about changes to the body of the text. Kind of unprofessional? pic.twitter.com/pQZjhCg4Ko
— Brian Gallagher (@bsgallagher) May 5, 2022
The Wall Street Journal's Elliot Kaufman slammed the Times, tweeting "It’s official, apartheid South Africa suffered from too much free speech."
It’s official, apartheid South Africa suffered from too much free speech. https://t.co/msvk9S2gJN
— Elliot Kaufman (@ElliotKaufman6) May 5, 2022
Kaufman wasn't the only one...
How do they come to the conclusion that apartheid South Africa showed "the dangers of unchecked speech"? The apartheid government DEFINITELY censored the news and intimidated dissenters into silence. Yet the NYT argues that apartheid South Africa needed LESS free speech?
— Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸 (@ChristinaPushaw) May 5, 2022
Unacknowledged stealth edits strike yet again
— nic carter (@nic__carter) May 5, 2022
The propaganda being used to attack @elonmusk because he’s buying @twitter truly is breathtaking. Look at this @nytimes headline. It’s truly Orwellian. pic.twitter.com/k0WWPKTCSl
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) May 5, 2022
And once again a formerly respected mainstream outlet beclowns itself in an effort to attack an ideological opponent.
The New York Times has come under fire for an absurd hit-piece on Elon Musk which suggests that because he “grew up in a bubble of white privilege” in South Africa, he’s just fine with racist or other ‘toxic’ content on Twitter, which they frame as ‘unchecked speech.’
After the ‘paper of record’ began catching flack for their race-baiting smear (and perhaps after a call from Musk’s legal team), they stealth-edited the article to add distance and suggest that musk may or may not have been influenced by South Africa’s history (but either way he’s a white guy who grew up in South Africa ‘so make of that what you will’).
Some editing going on this afternoon https://t.co/3kQSgPW0Y5 pic.twitter.com/SGFQLNJIO9
— Tom Gara (@tomgara) May 5, 2022
No editor’s note about changes to the body of the text. Kind of unprofessional? pic.twitter.com/pQZjhCg4Ko
— Brian Gallagher (@bsgallagher) May 5, 2022
The Wall Street Journal‘s Elliot Kaufman slammed the Times, tweeting “It’s official, apartheid South Africa suffered from too much free speech.”
It’s official, apartheid South Africa suffered from too much free speech. https://t.co/msvk9S2gJN
— Elliot Kaufman (@ElliotKaufman6) May 5, 2022
Kaufman wasn’t the only one…
How do they come to the conclusion that apartheid South Africa showed “the dangers of unchecked speech”? The apartheid government DEFINITELY censored the news and intimidated dissenters into silence. Yet the NYT argues that apartheid South Africa needed LESS free speech?
— Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸 (@ChristinaPushaw) May 5, 2022
Unacknowledged stealth edits strike yet again
— nic carter (@nic__carter) May 5, 2022
The propaganda being used to attack @elonmusk because he’s buying @twitter truly is breathtaking. Look at this @nytimes headline. It’s truly Orwellian. pic.twitter.com/k0WWPKTCSl
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) May 5, 2022
And once again a formerly respected mainstream outlet beclowns itself in an effort to attack an ideological opponent.
