OK, so, this just pushes the question back a level. You believe the New York Times is trustworthy because they print what’s on CNN. So why do you believe CNN is trustworthy? All the same questions I asked about the Times - move those back and ask them now about CNN.
This is not even remotely true. I don’t know why you would even think it’s possible. They’ll cover some of the same major stories, but the Times isn’t getting its news from CNN. The Times prints a large newspaper and CNN runs a 24-hour news. The idea that everything in the Times was on CNN is ridiculous. Certainly CNN isn’t going to do the Times’ local New York coverage or science reporting, obituaries (in most cases), or much of the content of the magazine. And as other people pointed out this doesn’t explain why you trust CNN. Regardless it’s completely wrong.
It’s like all of his theories. He believes it because it is true and it’s true because he believes it.
If CNN had the only reporter allowed to cover the White House, your logic would stand up. Surely you are aware, however, that many many other news organizations (including the New York Times) have reporters in the White House press corps, and one would expect that if any of them (including the Times guy) was not bothering to do his/her job but instead just copied whatever CNN reported, they’d be fired pronto.
Entertaining theory, though. 
Koz, have you ever looked into Hamer’s New German Medicine? I think it’s right up your alley. He has some humdingers of conspiracy theories.
Yes, but theoretically…
And it still doesn’t explain why Kozmik singles out CNN and the New York Times. Thousands of news outlets from national to local covered those events.
It is - if you get a chance - i’d be interested in knowing if you think it is true.
You do know that the Hinkley’s brother ate dinner with Bush’s son Neil - well he would have at least - if Hinkley hadn’t shot Reagan?
Another “crazy” person - or Manchruian candidate? He continues to fire his gun even after the had emptied it - click, click, click. Bush was a former CIA director.
His son George ends up being president - decided in a state where his other son appointed the person who was in charge of counting the votes. Both Bush Senior and Jr were members of the Skull & Bones…
CNN, three letters. New York Times, twelve, which divided by four gives you three. Do you need spoon fed?
I believe CNN is trustworthy because otherwise I would have to be prepared to question reality (The Matrix) or, alternatively, be open to subjecting it to conspiracy theory (September Clues). The conspiracy theorists who put September Clues on YouTube do not believe that CNN is trustworthy.
It looks like the reporters for The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, The Washington Post, CNN, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times all copied… and, as Bill Keller wrote in his column, every one of those news organizations had a dateline other than Benghazi.
Bill Keller also makes the argument that
What happens when it’s wrong?
This is increasingly illogical, which is saying something because this was illogical at the beginning. Trust is not binary, and you still haven’t explained why you like CNN and not every other channel that broadcast the same stuff and every news source that printed it.
All copied what? What are you talking about?
You’re doing that gnomic gibberish thing again - and not answering direct, simple questions.
I do not “like” CNN. I do not “like” The New York Times. I do not “like” news. Bill Keller listed six news sources that printed “the same stuff” about the Benghazi attack. Which begs the question: What were those news sources source? (hint: not journalists on the scene)
The - in Bill Keller’s words -“first online reports after the Benghazi attack”.
I’m talking about what, ultimately, is news. News is information. (What is information? Yes, I am asking that question.) And the only news sources that got accurate information, as Bill Keller reported, were of journalists on the scene who set the record straight.
“Gnomic gibberish”? Ok. What do you mean - “trust is not binary”?
Not every news gathering organization has the funding or manpower to have a reporter stationed at every location in the world where a newsworthy event may occur, either as a staff member or on retainer. Therefore, at least during the early stages of a breaking story, many news organizations must rely on repackaging the reports of those who happened to have better access until they get their own assets on to the scene… There is NOTHING sinister about this.
There is a quantative difference between having a source at a place like Benghazi and having a reporter available for a White House lunch. Every serious US news organization has a staff member assigned to White House duty. They do not need to depend on other reporters to gather information. They may all sound alike, because i am ceratin many just depend on the White House press corps handouts to create their copy. This is lazy but NOT SINISTER.
Kozmik, which news sources are reliable?
… in fact, I would have been far more concerned about shenanigans if there were a full press corps at Benghazi prior to the attacks. That would indicate that *someone *with *influence *made their secret phone call and told the news organizations to be there. The way the Benghazi attack was actually reported agrees with how the world actually works - no one needed to deliberately manipulate any news source.
No one needs to instruct people to *not *go somewhere if nothing had happened at that place yet.
What you’re saying is that you choose to believe certain news sources based on…nothing, really. What you have completely failed to do is explain WHY you think that the New York Times, or CNN, is trustworthy, while other news sources are not. Despite weeks of dancing around, you still have not offered one single, solitary argument to explain this odd choice. WHY can you reject the Matrix or conspiracy options? What is the REASON you reject those theories?
In a way, this is good, because this is precisely what I’m attempting to force you to confront. I want you to examine your beliefs and realize that they ARE NOT LOGICAL. You cannot offer any logical reason for this one simple belief - that these news sources are trustworthy, despite all of your Illuminati paranoia to the contrary. Do you see that?
You are still not explaining why you’ve deemed those news sources trustworthy without extending that trust to the hundreds of other news outlets that do the same thing. It is not possible to believe everything you read. That’s incoherent and produces no insight.
Online reports and the U.S. government, I expect. (And yes, I probably could’ve figured this out if I’d spent more time reading Keller’s column. I was distracted by the ridiculousness of your other commentary.)
Yes, that’s one of the few sensible things you have said here. It doesn’t answer any question you were asked or explain your thought process, which remains inscrutable. But at least it’s true.
I mean that somehow you have concocted the belief that if CNN reports something accurately, everything they reported must be correct, and if the NYT agrees with CNN about anything, all their reporting must also be correct. But for some reason that doesn’t extend to, um, every news outlet in the world. That’s not how journalism works. It’s really not how thinking works. The reports have to be judged on their own terms. Your opinion of the network matters, but only as a part of a broader analysis.
How is it that of all the billions of places in the world they could be at that particular time, they just happened to be at that particular place? Coincidence? Think about it, Kozmik. The conspiracy is far bigger than you realize.
The New York Times and CNN.
The reason I reject those theories is because if I did not reject those theories then I could not believe anything I read in The New York Times or believe anything I see on CNN. So I reject September Clues because that is implausable and I reject The Matrix because that is unknowable.
I believe that The New York Times is trustworthy because it is arguably the preeminent newspaper of record:
emphasis mine