Is the New York Times now rethinking its stance on children and puberty blockers? They seem to be…

submitted by ClassroomPast6178 from nytimes.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Greykittymomma 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Just reading many of the articles from Daily Mail give me that sense. I judge articles based on the merit of the content included. I notice them pop up again and again with real news and people dismiss it because of the name at the top. Ridiculous. I even see things on Fox News that are reasonable from time to time but you can't really post those to folks without them thinking you ONLY read them.

Like hello, I read more than one source... We ARE on the INTERNET!

I used to watch RT on YT, oops I'm on a list 🤪

[–]alladd 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I mean...I sort of dismiss them because of how ass ugly the site is, and all the terrible clickbait links, but I get what you mean.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

As I say, they have a big female readership which means lots of celeb stories one after another.

[–]alladd 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is sort of funny that every "female oriented" publication like HuffPo or Jezebel ends up being bolstered with scummy gossip about celebs. I guess it's what they want to read.