Latest Breaking News

That makes a huge difference.

As for the stories about Mamdani, I didn't see those. But again, if they were analysis stories, it's the original writer of said opinion that's the most accountable, not strictly the paper.

On your sentence "The Times will protect the anonymity of a white supremacist, but will silence their own Black columnist for accurately identifying him" I don't know the full details, but I'll just say generally that newspaper policy in instances such as this is a lot more complicated than many think. My criticism in 2016 that the Wikileaks leaks reported so extensively by the Times should never have been used since stories quoted them directly and made them the news when the sources could have been easily tampered with. Same is true with this stuff about Mamdami. If I was making an editorial judgment, I'd allow for stories about the hacked material with very general descriptions of what was leaked, but I wouldn't allow for extensive quoting and making it the source. If that's what happened with the Mamdami leaks, that was not good, IMO.

I hope I haven't gone too far off the trail. If I did, I apologize. I don't like the quick assumptions that everything is fake news. That's what Trump wants you to believe.