Democracy Now:
"New York Times Exposé Lacks Evidence to Claim Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence Oct. 7. ...[In] early December, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government really began an intense propaganda campaign to convince the world that Hamas had engaged in a systematic campaign of rape aimed at Jewish women and girls. And then they launched this fake criticism of feminist organizations, saying that they had all systematically failed to stand up and denounce this systematic rape regime that had been intentionally implemented by Hamas in the October 7th attacks. And on the day that Netanyahu made his most prominent statement about this, President Biden was at a fundraising event in Boston, and he issued — he made a statement at his speech that echoed what Netanyahu said, and said the world, you know, can’t turn away and ignore this. ...

So, The New York Times, they can’t find anyone who works in the rape crisis centers, at the hospitals, among therapists, that are coming forward and saying, 'Yeah, we saw this,' or 'We have documentation of this,' so they go to people who already were known to have promoted false information, and then they start relying on their testimony to paint this tapestry, this notion that there was a systematic rape regime. And in the New York Times article, they do not ever disclose that their key witnesses have serious credibility problems. So, this is, at a minimum, we are looking at a New York Times piece that failed to inform its readers about severe credibility issues among some of its premier 'witnesses,' quote-unquote, that it put forward in this story. ...

My question is: Where are the corrections in The New York Times piece? The New York Times has grave, grave mischaracterizations, sins of omission, reliance on people who have no forensic or criminology credentials to be asserting that there was a systematic rape campaign put in place here."
[Jeremy Scahill from The Intercept]
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/3/1/nyt_anat_schwartz

-->This story is so similar to what the NYT did right before the US invasion of Iraq. The newspaper brought in unreliable and obviously biased reporters to say what the Pentagon wanted to hear. When push comes to shove, The NYT is always the empire's mouthpiece. And I say, lets bring back Judith Miller and some of her yellow cake uranium!

=====

The Guardian UK:
"The US and UK have been accused by university researchers of obstructing a United Nations inquiry into the 1961 plane crash that killed the UN secretary general Dag Hammarskjöld. A conference in London heard an update from the UN assistant secretary general for legal affairs, Stephen Mathias, on progress in the inquiry, which is seeking archive documentation from member states.

The participants said the US and UK had been dragging their feet in handing over potentially vital information. Hammarskjöld, a Swede, died on 18 September 1961 on the way to negotiate a ceasefire between UN peacekeepers in the Congo and separatists from the breakaway Congolese region of Katanga. ...

Susan Williams, a researcher whose 2011 book Who Killed Hammarskjöld contributed to the reopening of the UN inquiry, said the US and UK were 'global outliers. ...The most recent general assembly resolution to renew the investigation was co-sponsored by 142 UN member states out of 193 – but not by the US and the UK,' Williams said."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/01/uk-us-obstructing-inquiry-death-united-nations-dag-hammarskjold

-->Could it be that the US and UK were involved in killing a UN secretary general? But the NYT didn't cover this story. Again the empire's mouthpiece.

=====

Counterpunch:
"A little while back, I challenged a group of graduate students to find one article in the New York Times written in the last five years that had anything favorable to say about Russia. Their extensive research turned up one article published in 2021 that described the beneficial effects of global warming on cold countries. The piece was entitled, 'How Russia Cashes In On Climate Change.' Other than that, the newspaper’s sizeable cadre of Russia specialists reported virtually nothing about Europe’s most populous nation other than stories picturing Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation as scheming plotters, corrupt and incompetent rulers, meddlers in other nations’ elections, brutal oppressors of their own people, and aggressive expansionists threatening everyone else’s independence and freedom.

One does not have to be an admirer of Mr. Putin or his right-wing regime to consider this coverage so unbalanced and Russophobic as to amount to a form of warmongering. ...

At times like this, one can only hope that a few sane leaders supported by a public tired of inflammatory rhetoric and needless killing will call a halt to jingoist assumptions of our own side’s essential innocence and the other side’s essential aggressivity. That these assumptions generate billions of dollars in profits for military-industrial corporations does not make them easy to extirpate. Even so, we can demand that journalists who ought to know better stop peddling these lies and exaggerations – and a growing number of clear-eyed citizens will say, 'Amen!' ”
https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/02/29/more-anti-russian-hysteria-from-the-new-york-times/

-->Well, we would like to see an end to the warmongering of the NYT. The same is true of other "enemies of the state" like Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Iran. We the people want news, not propaganda.