- cross-posted to:
- ghazi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- cross-posted to:
- ghazi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/26082031
The house style of the New York Times is severely outdated. Depending on the topic, the newspaper’s purportedly impartial tone instead reads as smug, self-amused, and deeply lazy. The results are disastrous when applied to a recent article which sincerely considers the idea that Rachel Griffin-Accurso, the popular children’s entertainer known as Ms. Rachel, might […]
Archived version without paywall: https://archive.is/yE3mF
I’ve read the NYT article, and I can’t see anywhere where the author ‘sincerely considers the idea that Rachel Griffin-Accurso, the popular children’s entertainer known as Ms. Rachel, might be financially compensated by Hamas.’ Instead they report that ‘the advocacy group StopAntisemitism’ ‘sent a letter urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether Accurso is receiving funding to further Hamas’s agenda.’
The article as a whole seems pretty positive towards Miss Rachel, and uses her comments to point out how bad things are in Gaza, and insinuates that StopAntisemitism are the problematic ones.
That’s my problem with the article. This letter is meaningless. They might as well report “crazy people send crazy message and are promptly ignored”. Why give them a voice?
From the rest of the article I very much got the ‘crazy people send crazy message’ message, but I can see how that might depend on the reader.
You say the letter is meaningless, but I think we have to be careful. Sesame Street teaches kindness, inclusivity and caring, and I think the republicans would be only too happy for an excuse to tear it down.