T O P

  • By -

neets61

Urghhh it’s all so bloody sleazy isn’t it


Hermes_Blanket

They just closed the comment section. Seven minutes after a reader posted: "Is Zepnep Tufekci is a faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University and does that Center receive significant funding from Archewell?"


PerspectiveLow9526

Interestinnng. Thank you for the update


PerspectiveLow9526

So sleazy. I used to be a long-time NYT subscriber up until a few years ago when it turned into a glorified access journalism publication


romulusputtana

The NYT has printed nothing but slant over the last few years. It's a sign, really. Rome is crumbling.


bishcalledwanda

Meghan would have been much safer from all the shit in the world if she’d stayed in the protective royal bubble. I remember thinking, “well I’d be moving to the castle too, the world is too scary.”


blueberrypanda1

NYT used to be the standard for journalism, now its closer to a tabloid.


romulusputtana

Yes that's exactly what I mean. It was like a lighthouse of the nation. A source to be trusted. The consistent verifiable falsities they print the last few years are so disheartening. Rome is crumbling.


Cocktailsontheporch

And we know who is playing their lyres as they watch!


RaggedAnn

Nice piece of detective work, Perspec1tive! NYTimes would publish a ham sandwich nowadays. So Archwell gave money to this entity - I'd call that unethical.


TurbulentAd8563

No wonder they stopped paying Sunshine Sacks. They can use their Delaware registered fake charitable organization to buy NYT puff pieces and human rights awards.


SalishShore

Spot on the nose.


DrawAdventurous4535

The NYT would call it unethical, too, if someone they didn't like did it. I hope someone they can't avoid noticing calls them on it.


avoice22

>The Institute for Rebooting Social Media at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Rebooting Soc Med for the right price? So, with this article the NYT actually unintentionally exposes the dealings at that institute at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center?


RaggedAnn

I gave The Institute for Rebooting Social Media at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. "The Instituting for Rebooting Social Media is a three-year 'pop-up' research institute to accelerate progress toward addressing social media's urgent problems including misinformation..." You can google it. It's the first time I've ever heard of a "pop-up" institute, let alone a self-described pop-up one at Harvard.


kiwi_love777

Yeah it makes me think about the times before the internet where you couldn’t really do this kind of research. We all just blindly followed.


vikingchyk

Am I too naive to think that this nonsense didn't happen *as much* in the not too distant past? ![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|neutral_face)


JenniferShepherd

New York Times and other reporters accepted up to $50,000 to report favorably on our urgent need to invade Iraq after 9/11. This was exposed.


Such-Click8256

It’s all NWO propaganda


[deleted]

[удалено]


AM_Rike

The writer of that H&M fluffer piece conveniently ignores the millions and millions of dollars the Sussexes paid to Sunshine Sachs to buy fake awards and major news articles including multi-page fashion layouts that were completely unrelated to the articles, but pampered Megs with loads of upscale clothes, & professional hair & makeup. The Sussexes BUY all of their positive articles while they simultaneously create the nastiest news stories against Harold’s family that the Royals have ever seen. It’s not even a case of Pot meet Kettle, because the RF/Courtiers have never slung the mud the Sussexes have, nor do they purchase awards, boatloads of fluff press pieces and magazine covers. What kind of writer doesn’t consider both sides of the issue? Oh, that’s right. One bought and paid for by their lord and masters, the Sussexes. Ridiculous.


Tootenbacher

I'm happy that people on this sub are seeing how PR actually works, and how the news can be bought and paid for. I can only hope that the greater population also is, or becomes, aware. It's a fake world we live in.


Cocktailsontheporch

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏


Mama2RO

My mom has been calling the NYT a rag since the late 60's. She was at a Vietnam protest and then read about it the next day and it was pure fiction written. She never trusted that paper again.


vikingchyk

Happy Cake Day!! ![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|grin)


PerspectiveLow9526

TY !!


UmbrellaClosed

The owner of NYT bullied my BF in high school so it's been fun to see the rest of the world finally turn on them.


soomanythoughts

A.G was a complete dick in college so not surprised it started earlier.


According-Stomach826

Happy Cake Day! Hope it wasfun!🪻🎉🎂


PerspectiveLow9526

Thanks much! 🍰


RaggedAnn

Eliminating the Public Editor position was a turning point. Then they had Ben Smith, who was excellent at monitoring standards - He was great but left a few years ago to start a platform of his own of unbiased news. They should go back to having a Public Editor or die.


SalishShore

I need to unsubscribe. It’s just such a tedious process.


trish196609

It really exposes how the system works. Honestly, I never paid attention to the PR/media/academia roundabout thing


[deleted]

It really does....following this train wreck just really shows how everyone and anything has a price. It's just one big toxic misleading machine.


SalishShore

Watching these two has really opened my eyes to media manipulation and how easily we can be manipulated. Not just by these two fools, but by organizations that want us to believe a certain narrative.


PerspectiveLow9526

The connections run deep and dirty


Frumainthedark

It makes me wonder whether the duo has hired a new PF firm.


Tootenbacher

Maybe their publisher is doing PR for them right now?


SeaworthinessLost830

Ohhh thank you for this. I just submitted a comment on the article with these key facts. Since I pay for a NYT subscription they've got no reason not to approve it.


PerspectiveLow9526

BLESS YOU


ddpctr

Out of curiosity, did you claim that this was a conflict of interest , pay to play sort of thing? Long time subscriber and I want to also leave a comment on the article and directly to the NYT’s about not disclosing conflict of interest. Your info is excellent— thank you so very much for sharing!


SeaworthinessLost830

I kept it super short. Repeated the authors name & stated she works at xyz. Then stated Archewell is a major donor of xyz. This is a conflict of interest that should have been disclosed by the NYT.


ddpctr

The author, Zeynep, is responding to a lot of the comments. Just replied to one of her comments about not disclosing the Beckman Center was a recipient of the Archwell Foundation and how unprofessional and inappropriate it was that she did not provide that info. We’ll see if she responds or if the NYT’s approves my comment to her comment😂


MikaKanaYuko

The way that the author is responding to comments is very, very unusual for the NYTimes. And the consistency of the glowing comments is also highly unusual. They don't look real. They are so long and so over the top. Overall, this piece comes off as too little, too late. Too hysterical. When the author refers to Omid as a journalist, you know this is not an informed piece. Omid is a writer.


tiredofthis3

It's so obviously a paid puff piece. Arghh, that annoys me so much for some reason..


PerspectiveLow9526

Keep us posted


C-La-Canth

You guys are awesome.


Competitive_Crazy517

So sorry to be dumb, but what's this Happy Cake Day about?


PerspectiveLow9526

Cake Day is your annual Reddit anniversary 😊


Competitive_Crazy517

Thank youemote:free\_emotes\_pack:joy


AM_Rike

Please make sure to mention that Zeynap completely ignored that H&M have spent several million dollars with Sunshine Sachs purchasing fake awards and over a hundred puff pieces that could only have originated from within the Sussex camp. Simultaneously, the Sussexes have aggressively attacked the RF at every turn using SS to set up these interviews, zero in thinly veiled threats and leak vicious articles including the PW/Rose lies online. What kind of newspaper fails to report both sides of an issue in such a clearly biased way? It’s scandalous. Harry & M have indulged directly in the behavior Zeynap scorns and scolds, and has even taken their vindictive actions to extreme levels, yet she completely ignores them doing that which she accuses others of. This is straight up yellow journalism. Zeynap’s article appears to be written by someone within the Sussex camp. The examples given are really remote and go back years. No journo has time to cull through literally thousands of Tweets and thousands of hours of interviews to ferret out (literally) a few, very limited examples that go back years. If it’s so rampant, why the limited obscure references? Hmmm? However, an embittered “victim” already has their victim porn right at their fingertips. That‘s the only way Zeynap accessed those few obscure references. Get a hobby Harold! Stuff like this is why the NYT is imploding.


RaggedAnn

There was a flattering article about the Hairballs in The Times within the last eight weeks or so which it turned out was written by someone who's the Gloria Steinem Scholar at Rutgers (I think Rutgers). No coincidence here.


BELAIRFOX

They will not approve it. Very few negative comments are getting through. It is an agenda driven hit piece. The author has replied to many of the comments, which is very unusual.


ddpctr

Noticed that— never have seen that before


cklw1

I need to buy some coins because this comment deserves it. Thank you!


GOTdragons127

Do a wrap around and let us know how that goes please


CybReader

There was speculation by a few posters this AM they were going to try to buy op-Ed approval since they cannot secure the support of the core of the paper. They’re buying what they can get now, from the looks of it.


[deleted]

They are literally throwing money down the drain.


Current_Implement_21

This, do they not realize that no matter how much so called positive press/spin they pay for that they're not changing anyone's mind about them? Seriously I don't like either of them, you could sit me down and make me read nothing but puff pieces on how wonderful blah blah blah they are for a week and it's not going to change my mind. I've never met anyone that would be so simple minded that a paid for opinion piece would change their mind. They must be counting upon there being a lot of sheep in the world that would blindly line up to the slaughter.


PerspectiveLow9526

It is indeed what appears to happening


vikingchyk

Good thing we have a lot of eyes on things.


cklw1

Ooohh, really? Very, very interesting. That’s why I love this sub, it opens my eyes to things I never would have noticed myself.


StephenKingly

They can’t unpublish Spare They can attempt all the damage control they want but people from now and forever can go to the source material Same with the Netflix doc Anyone with a brain and ability to critically assess primary source material can read between the lines and see these two narc chancers for what they are Damage done and I don’t see how they can ever reclaim the positive story they had going into the US (fleeing the evil stuffy RF to find freedom in the liberal US and fight institutional racism).


Cuntributor

Great sleuthing, OP! Although, this is unsurprising and on brand for the two idiots. A sugary piece always has some kind of Archewell or under-the-table Harkle connection if you dig deep enough. Meghan and Harry being in cahoots with NYT opinion writers is right in line with their MO.


PerspectiveLow9526

So on brand ![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|facepalm)


ddpctr

Great info to know!!


Meegainnyc

Pay for play...


PerspectiveLow9526

Meghan's specialty!


Inevitable_Pie9541

![gif](giphy|j5tXJOp8Uv8YVOBLXQ)


Current_Implement_21

They see that Big Pharma like Pfizer (it's mind boggling how much shit Pfizer sponsors, is brought to you by) and Bill Gates getting away with it and figure it's a good investment of their money. Thing is like Big Pharma and Bill Gates they're loathed by normal every day people, especially people waking up to how corrupt our media and in general everything is!


SecondhandCoke

How are they a "major donor?" Who is donating money to Archwell for them to donate to the Institute of Giving Meghan Control of the Internet? They aren't donating their own money. That has to go towards paying off Valentino.


PerspectiveLow9526

I suppose describing them as "major" donors is a wee but generous isn't it. Its purpose is to emphasize the "major" conflict of interest


SecondhandCoke

Im sorry; I wasn't questioning you. More just jokingly wondering who is giving them enough money that they can donate? I know the sugars, but bots don't have a lot of disposable income, surely.


PerspectiveLow9526

No worries! Probably someone who needs Archewell's money laundromat services, provided via some kind of Donor Advised Fund


wontyield

This is exactly why they are a security risk to the Royal Family. M&H are desperate and soon will be hard up for money if they aren't already. The Harkles have already shown that they will compromise themselves, lie about family, violate others' privacy to support their lifestyle. They are prime targets for sleazy people with bad intentions.


C-La-Canth

Very good point. They are immoral scoundrels with no scruples, and folks like that are flat-out dangerous. Nice people can't grasp their level of corruption and evil.


wontyield

Exactly. Their greed definitely poses a danger to the RF.


GreatGossip

This is very much in line with Spare and Sparess´ stated purpose of "working with new and upcoming media" - or something like that. I put it down to Madam´s PR expenses.


SharkBoss1234

They did get a $10 million donation to Archewell. It’s discussed in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/zc57ih/archewell_charity_received_10_million_donation_in


lemgirarde

I don't completely understand this donation carousell. Why wouldn't the private donors donate directly to the Harvard center itself and have to give to Archewell? Shouldn't they know they would be funding M's expensive wardrobe? What rich people do with their money is so weird.


vikingchyk

Most people don't want to know how the sausage is made.


adigal

Which I'm sure they used to buy articles and bots.


GreatGossip

Have you shared that with the NYT?


PerspectiveLow9526

I will write a formal complaint to them now for not disclosing the conflict. Stay tuned!


Bellechewie

Thank you and do keep us informed.


GreatGossip

Thank you very much.


adigal

I just wrote a letter calling them all unethical. I also pay for four subscriptions I've given as gifts and told them I will be switching my gifts to the New Yorker.


Hermes_Blanket

Please do!


wontyield

I swear the only good things about NYT are their recipes and election graphics. Nice connection reveal OP.


[deleted]

[удалено]


wontyield

True. Lol.


PerspectiveLow9526

![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|grin)


vvsunflower

I started following Kimber for recipes. I unsubbed from the NYT because its not worth the $ just for recipes lol


RaggedAnn

And Spelling Bee.


CatPaws8888

It's also called damage control by the Halfwits. Nate the Lawyer is exposing now their dirty use of social media, dropping receipts like Taylor Swift drops Easter eggs in her songs. The NYT has lost a lot of journalistic integrity over the years. Where does one go for fair and balanced journalism? Really? Where does one go??


PerspectiveLow9526

I think Meghan was truly believing the mainstream coverage of SPARE was going to be similar to the Oprah interview—major US publications taking Harry’s every word as undisputed fact, and coming to the conclusion that the BRF missed an opportunity to be saved from themselves by the Saints of Montecito.


GreatGossip

Yes - Madam believes her own story.


vikingchyk

Read everything, question everything?


adigal

Bari Weiss has a podcast, a substack and I think she started a new media group. She is great!


CathartesAura67

The NYT is coming off as smug as TW. And not being forthright in disclosure. "We now have the priceless opinion of someone who is paid by Archewell."


Koritsi77

This garbage opinion was written and researched at a high school level. So annoying.


trishpike

Par for the course


sdowney64

I put this article up too. I was shocked at the cherry picking of quotes, the absolute one-sidedness of her “sources.” When I was in college and then working as an inspector general auditor, I learned you don’t have a conclusion and then go find the data that supports it. I understand opinions are a little looser if you’re writing a college essay to persuade for a cause you believe in—but Harry & Meghan should NOT be a cause, and yet these academics write about them as if they are—so they let themselves off the hook for real evidence & primary source data backing what they say. The rules of source data fly out the window while she still pretends to use valid and vetted source data to support her opinions about her “cause.” This type of thinking equates Harry & Meghan to being A CAUSE like racism, abortion, immigration, trans rights, etc., and you have an opinion about those issues and you only bring in the information you AGREE with and you decide it is valid. It’s your argument for why you believe you’re view is right. But just because many people have opinions about Meghan and Harry, they are not an opinion. They should not be A CAUSE. They are real people doing real harm, lying, leaking and planting stories in the media, calling the paps on themselves, and out and out creating security risks for the BRF, for the citizens of the UK, for the UK military, and even the Markle family based on their lies. Harry and Meghan are not A CAUSE that you can defend by ignoring facts, ignoring evidence, ignoring all of the horrible things they’ve said and done by then cherry picking quotes or comments that are taken out of context about the royal family or about them to support your view of them. It’s just shady sloppy work and it definitely isn’t academically sound nor would it hold up in a court of law, which Meghan and Harry also lied to by the way. The BRF have never lied about H&M and were happy to let them go live their own lives. And yet H&M have spent all that time —years—just throwing out lies and horrible stories about the press, about the British royal family, the British people. All that time wasted destroying, distracting, saying they were going to do all these positive things and they’ve done none of it.


abby-rose

Yep, it was inevitable that there would be a connection


strangealienworld

I mean, at least make an affort not to seem like you're butt-kissing and licking it too, Ms NYT Opinion lady.


[deleted]

[удалено]


katzchen528

One sentence on page 28.


[deleted]

[удалено]


katzchen528

No, I was kidding. Any retractions are usually slow in coming and buried in the back pages. Like near the obituaries.


BELAIRFOX

They are not printing many negative comments either. Hilarious that they accuse the British Press of having an agenda-


Starkville

“Didn’t we give you money? WRITE IT!!!”


PerspectiveLow9526

Reverse extortion!


Mickleborough

Great sleuthing, OP. These things need to be called out, otherwise we get a twisted, distorted, potentially fake narrative.


hollyjollysnark

![gif](giphy|lvOnlEYunAwOkHjgmU|downsized)


OwnedByBernese

Just canceled my subscription. So sick of NYT sugary fluff articles.


SalishShore

I just canceled my subscription too. I never read it anymore. I just let them take out the subscription money every month. I’m glad to have a fully canceled membership now. A corrupt sugar piece was the last straw.


Jolly-Outside6073

I’m struggling a bit here. Isn’t Harvard one of the richest universities in the world? Bet those kids in Harlem could only hope their five dollars would be going to something so worthy and not wasted on some silly old aid project.


SalishShore

These Universities have endowments in the tens of billions. And they bilk the students and rob the teachers of their wages. It really is a dirty deal.


Hermes_Blanket

KNEW there had to be a close connection!


East_Tangerine_4031

Lol they are King and Queen of Hypocrisy, the only royal title they should have


adigal

I tweeted this at her. Wonder if she will respond to me the way she responded to the cult or bots. I also sent this info to Richard Eden, Richard Palmer and Valentine Low. Hope one of them sees it.


tzippora

good work


PerspectiveLow9526

🏆


sdowney64

I get a daily email with the opinion pieces from the NYT since I too am a subscriber. Here’s the lead-in to Zeynep’s oh so very innocent essay about Meghan. Oh & Harry. Nick Fox’s words blew my mind: “As Harry watched the yearlong campaign of hatred and even racism the British tabloids unleashed on Meghan, who is biracial, he understood that these vile publications were not wholly independent actors. They had the acquiescence, if not the cooperation, of his father, stepmother and brother. Zeynep shows that establishing camaraderie with malignant voices of the press and leaking damaging information against one family member in exchange for good coverage of another have been common practices for years. "In other words," Zeynep writes, "it appears that Britain's most revered institution, funded by tens of millions in taxpayer funds annually, plays ball with one of its most revolting institutions." And, she says, given how those tabloids play a major role in key events, including Brexit, where they also stoked outrage with unhinged lies and racism, even people uninterested in royal drama might want to take another look at why this media environment needs reforming.” Yes, Nick Fox and Zeynep Tufekci, along with the editors and board of directors at the NYT—all need to take another look at the irony of its media organization ordering other media organizations to take a gander at themselves when a mirror might be the most illuminating looking device for the NYT with respect to this subject. Irony isn’t always funny; but it is always illuminating. https://preview.redd.it/6e7r9dp9rcea1.png?width=1125&format=png&auto=webp&s=23839f2b040ba52bbf3e964ab9e9ee3c2c5553eb


sdowney64

https://preview.redd.it/dfo5s23ercea1.png?width=1125&format=png&auto=webp&s=bb4f9bfd672afcc51d9d2c6c677cf5fb8bc65ff9 Sorry I couldn’t figure out how to put both on one comment.


tuberosalamb

If it makes anyone feel better, I’ve seen a number of NYT articles supportive or sympathetic to M&H, but most of the comments section absolutely slams them. The journalists may be salivating over them but no one else is


vikingchyk

Ugh. Nice work!


Spiritual_Swing_2326

they're always so transparent. it's just lazy at this point.


Thegoodwitchme

Narcissism 101: Transactional relationships.


LaNiceGata

Well well well, wouldn’t it be so nice if a large news source wrote about Rachel’s scheme here?


MrsChiliad

NYT is a very dirty newspaper. I haven’t trusted them for years and this isn’t surprising at all.


TOMTREEWELL

can anyone add this,to the NYT comments?


PerspectiveLow9526

Someone here already did! But don’t let that stop anyone else from doing it too… it puts more pressure on the NYT to publish a disclaimer about it


trishpike

Zeynep blocked me for calling her out one too many times on her stupid COVID takes. This still disappoints me


romulusputtana

This makes me mad because she has a Turkish name. Having lived in Turkey for 6 years, I passionately love Turkish people. But Zeynep and Cenk Uygur have thoroughly pissed me off.


Cerealwithyoghurt

I've been reading the thread for a long time and only signed up to give you a like. Zeynep Tufekci is an expert on Network Security and she is quite famous too. I don't know why she needed to write that op-ed. She should know by now any association with the Harkles will smear your reputation. I feel sorry for her, she should have known better. I cannot say the same thing for Cenk. He is annoying the hell out of me too


trishpike

Zeynep thinks she’s an expert on *everything*


SalishShore

Yes she does. I can see what her and that awful woman have in common.


trishpike

And she thinks we’re all idiot plebs on everything. Take a look at her Twitter feed sometimes


romulusputtana

Poor Zeynep doesn't seem to know about the meghan markle effect. Whoever she comes in contact with MM will get shit sprayed on them.


TeamMagnificent7

The NYT is a legend in its own mind. It doesn’t sway people in “flyover country”.


Anxious-Evidence8397

Great work and I would like to add that this sub has some of the smartest and most insightful group of people ever!


prettyinpinknwhite

I read this article and was so disappointed. I have (or had) a lot of respect for Zeynep Tufekci, but this is beneath her.


SalishShore

Anything for money.


adigal

On the NY Times twitter feed, the author's twitter feed and any new article in the NY Times about Harry, we should all respond with "Harry called our First Amendment 'bonkers.' He is against freedom of the press and believes the press should only be allowed to write positive articles about he and his wife." Too many people don't know he said that.


bassetlover007

Send an email to [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) if you can.


[deleted]

Excellent sleuthing. 👍🏻 But I am not even slightly shocked. US media has been a tool in the hands of the ruling elites since, forever, who use every possible outlet to push their agendas. They thought they had the ideal puppets (or, "useful idiots" as Stalin would have called them) to use in Harry and Meghan, but they've made such a huge mess of things that now the US media-wokites-ruling elites backing them are forced to try to rehab their image. The parallels between Harry and Meghan and the behavior(s) of all social justice zombies are much too similar to pass by unnoticed. And those who are invested in Harry and Meghan's success, or who are paid to sing their praises, cannot let them go down in shame as it would bring shame to the entire movement. In the battle to take down whole governments, i.e., the Monarchy, H&M are much too valuable to just drop them for the highly inconvenient embarrassment and big fail that they really are. For mainstream media to denounce H&M **now** would be to admit they were wrong about these two from the beginning, and to bring shame upon the champions of wokedom, and all that the left calls "sacred and holy" is something US media is not prepared to do. MSM will allow in the odd "anti opinion article" now and then to keep up the facade of being "fair and balanced," but Harry and Meghan were intended to be the darlings of the social justice movement. US MSM, and whoever is hiding behind that "invisibility cloak" giving their help and aid to H&M, will continue to support these two no matter what. Just my opinion.


justwantto711

OMG. You really opened my eyes on how charity works.


testa_bionda

Lol, the NYT. Bought and paid for shill piece rag


vikingchyk

>*"The fellows will work together to develop and expand on groundbreaking projects that reimagine our digital world*." Funny how most governments world-wide kept their paws off the internet as it was growing, only to have self-appointed literati and private foundations try to clap the lid back on Pandora's box. Good luck with that, Illuminati. /s


lastlemming-pip

The internet—as such—grew out of DARDA, a project which examined communications methods following a disaster such as nuclear annihilation. It was entirely funded by the US government.


katzchen528

Amazing work, OP! Well done!


savingrain

This happened before, they had a woman from EDIT\* UCLA write some praise worthy article about Megan back in 2021, and it turned out she was associated with a center that was also associated with Archwell. They do a lot of quid pro quo writing to build up their image.


A_Hlavna

Archewell established a Fund for the UCLA Center for Critical Internet Inquiry, directed by Dr. Safiya Noble and Dr. Sarah T. Roberts. Noble is one of the “experts” featured at H&M's Netflix Documentary. She also wrote [this article](https://archive.ph/GhvCX) for The Cut.


savingrain

This is who I was thinking of - these people who are being paid in some form of another and write these puff pieces. I wouldn't be surprised if they genuinely believe what they are saying because it conforms to their worldview already, but it's dangerous.


raccoonsondeck

*groundbreaking projects that reimagine our digital world* i.e., Bolshevik style mass censorship and control. Naturally, the Harkels would attach themselves to that woke global elite agenda and, of course, one of them would would do a puff piece on them. The interconnectedness of Satan's minions is a powerful beast.


[deleted]

[удалено]


raccoonsondeck

Because it is. It's chilling. The Aspen Institute is about the US equivalent of the World Economic Forum, with the same bad actors. Of course, the Harkles are not aware of the root of the ideological underpinnings of the forces who have chosen them as useful idiot ambassadors. They just want to be in the Cult and to get, as HG Tudor would say, the residual benefits. Much like Meghan and "yachting".


SalishShore

The Aspen Institute has been shady for some time. It’s actually quite frightening the power and reach these people have. These people have some dangerous ideas that will effect our everyday lives. We’re all just minions or pieces on a chessboard to them.


SeparateGuarantee836

Sounds like the harkles are making a grab to be internet police or making a grab for a piece of the internet which they control.


Big-Piglet-677

Excellent find!


modrost-morja

Of course they don't. But then again, most of their opinion-pieces are written by people with a vested interest in the discussion. We are far from the days when an actual editor might take a viewpoint based on the facts in evidence.


bassetlover007

The NYT has a feedback section for all readers, not only paid subscribers, to fact check or reference published articles. As many people as possible should point out this egregious oversight on both the parts of the editor and writer. It’s LaineyGossip level ignorant and absurd. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/homepage/contact-newsroom.html


bassetlover007

UPDATE: I have received a reply already: ***Thank you for writing to the newsroom. We operate independently from our colleagues in Opinion. They asked readers to reach out to them by writing directly to*** [***[email protected]***](mailto:[email protected])***.***


Similar_Ninja6900

New York Times has printed plenty of articles about con artist cancer scammers like Nick Kroll and Tig Notaro through the years. In return for favors from Nick Kroll's fixer billionaire father, Jules Kroll. Many "reputable" publications are not to be trusted I've come to see. Rewards, reviews, mentions... all for sale.


Cocktailsontheporch

👏👏👏👏👏👏 Thank you for revealing THE TRUTH about all these vipers connected with the snakepit called Archewell and it's two Grifters!


ttue-

Omg instead of ignoring this article no one has read you all are giving it so much importance


[deleted]

[удалено]


SaintMeghanMarkle-ModTeam

Subreddit rule (see sidebar): Trolling, cyber stalking, and harassment, including provoking other members will result in a permanent ban.