Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
Google the editor for pete sake people. I'm sorry I used the word deny, implying they were shouting at the moon that it didn't happen. They just didn't report it. All the news that's fit to print.

Even a paper wide award would be ludicrous because their job is to cover ALL of the news, not just the stuff they deem newsworthy. I hope we aren't patting papers on the back for suppressing news that makes the staff uncomfortable.
and it was deplorable that they refused to print a lot of information about the holocaust.

but i don't think it would be ludicrous if during the same time they won awards for reporting about other issues not related to war coverage at all.

you know who did a better job of calling the Times our for this??? the NY Times in November of 2001. when they were approaching their 150th Anniversary... they were very critical of this time period and talked to the Failures that occurred and how it was deplorable. it laid blame for it on the views of the publisher at the time, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. They openly admit this

so this was comparing the Times to OAN... where has OAN once ever admitted wrong doing??? will they when they look back on their time???

you have made a wonderful comparison here... the Times is now self aware of how awful they were during this period... that doesn't make the current OAN any less deplorable in their "reporting". and hopefully, eventually, someday they will come to that realization, like the Times has. But i don't see a lot of people walking around wearing shirts that support the Times specifically during the 1940's...