[moscoe]

They do quote anonymous sources all the time, and, more often than not, those anonymous sources are leaking to the media to push their narrative, ie propaganda. The NYT is very clearly the puppet of washington insiders.

The “literal New York Times” doesn't exist anymore. This is not investigative journalism. This is just acting as the mouth piece for some anonymous government official.

[reaperducer]

They do quote anonymous sources all the time, and, more often than not, those anonymous sources are leaking to the media to push their narrative, ie propaganda.

Citation needed. The New York Times has very strict rules about using anonymous sources. It's not some scary, shadow journalism effort. They publish their rules for anonymous sources right on their web site. Google is your friend.

The “literal New York Times” doesn't exist anymore. This is not investigative journalism. This is just acting as the mouth piece for some anonymous government official.

Having been a reader of the New York Times for almost 50 years, I can say the New York Times hasn't changed that much. I can also say that I look at it with a much more critical eye than most because of my journalism degrees and decades of experience as a journalist.

A major problem with society is that some anonymous low-karma recent-joiner rando spews things on HN like "The NYT is very clearly the puppet of washington insiders" and people believe it for no reason other than it tickles the part of their brain that agrees with it. Not because of any kind of objectivity, analysis, proof, or thought.

To pick a nit, you are correct: This was no investigative journalism. This was a routine daily story covering an announcement by a government agency. If you don't know the difference between the two, then you lack the knowledge and understanding required to be critical of any sort of journalism.

[zer00eyz]

> Having been a reader of the New York Times for almost 50 years, I can say the New York Times hasn't changed that much.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/07/new-york-times...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-new-york-times-wmd-cov...

> To pick a nit, you are correct: This was no investigative journalism.

From the NYT article: "James A. Lewis, a cybersecurity researcher at the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington, said that only a handful of countries could pull off such an operation, including Russia, China and Israel."

Using the agreeable expert isn't "reporting" its BAD journalism. It's WMD's all over again.

[rpdillon]

You're glossing over the fact that the journalist is not technical at all (she covers policy stuff) and so she can't be adversarial at all in the technical realm. But she's also not adversarial in any way I can see. Off the top of my head, from memory:

    How can you get browsing history off of SIM cards?
    If this case is historically large, how many other SIM farm cases as USSS investigated?
    If this is so unusual and dangerous, why does McCool say there's no reason to believe there aren't a lot more around the country?
    Why is the USSS only telling us about this the day of Trump's speech at the UN, when the SIM farms were found back in August?
    What evidence do these experts have that this could have only been pulled off by a nation-state? Is it that it is technically sophisticated? Is it because it cost so much? Is it because the hardware can't be easily obtained?
    What degree does this expert hold, and in what subject?  They heavily rely on an "expert" that has a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1984.  What did he study?
    Is it even technically possible to have a SIM farm 35 miles away from a target and cause the towers to crash?
    Why is the journalist for the NYT choosing to repeat statements about this being a threat to the UN when there is zero evidence this has anything to do with the UN at all?
    Why are officials from the agency publishing the press release being cited anonymously?

I could go on, but there are so many pieces that don't fit. This was the first article I've read, maybe ever, where I got a very strong vibe of "This is U.S. government propaganda!"

> A major problem with society is that some anonymous low-karma recent-joiner rando spews things on HN

Not so sure about that. Sometimes the message is delivered in a sloppy way. I'm working here to not deliver my message sloppily, to show why simply disregarding what you read from a rando might not be the best.

> Not because of any kind of objectivity, analysis, proof, or thought.

Exactly my concern.