New York Times reported that Poland invaded Germany in 1939.

 How the New York Times has published lies to serve a biased narrative.  

The NY Times has twisted the facts to serve a larger narrative, from Hitler to Trump, according to a new book.  

NY Times reported that Poland attacked Germany starting WW2.

Excerpt: 

The paper’s coverage of Adolf Hitler’s Germany in the decade before World War II is an early example of its narrative manipulation, Rindsberg writes. 

So glowing was its picture of the regime that the Nazis regularly included New York Times reports in their own radio programs. “That’s because the Times bureau chief in Berlin, Guido Enderis, was a Nazi collaborator,” Rindsberg said. 

Under Enderis, bureau reporters won Pulitzer Prizes as they drew on Hitler’s propaganda to cover the 1936 Berlin Olympics and the 1938 Munich Conference, when Britain and France tried to appease the fuhrer by giving him a chunk of Czechoslovakia. Enderis even parroted the Nazis’ claim that Poland invaded Germany to spark the war in Europe in 1939, not the other way around. ...

The Times lied about the Holodomor because the Times owners supported Communism.  The Times owners knew that Durante was covering up for Stalin and approved. 

 “Duranty was instructed by his higher-ups to cover the Ukraine famine in that way,” Rindsberg said. “At the time, The New York Times was actively pushing for American recognition of the Soviet Union,” he explained. The US business establishment, led by the Chamber of Commerce, was on board, and Soviet rhetoric meshed with the Ochs-Sulzberger family’s leftist politics. 

The Times lies relentlessly.  Its money, power, and prestige allow them to do it.  

Rindsberg sees the Sicknick and Russian-bounty stories as the latest examples of narrative construction at the Times. 

Sicknick died the evening of Jan. 7, the day after Trump supporters overran the US Capitol. 

“By Jan. 8th the Times had already published two big stories on his death,” Rindsberg said. “Right off the bat the narrative was that he’d been murdered.” 

In those initial stories, “two law enforcement officials” claimed that Sicknick suffered a “bloody gash” when “pro-Trump rioters . . . struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher.” 

“Pretty profound claims: that these people were not just protesting or rioting, but were committing murder — at the behest of President Trump,” Rindsberg said. 

Over the next month, at least 20 Times articles pounded the theme that Sicknick had been “killed” by the demonstrators or died as a result of rioters’ violence. None of the reports named a source for the claim, or even identified the law enforcement body from which it originated. 

“Ten or 12 different reporters contributed to this,” Rindsberg said. “Several had won Pulitzer Prizes” for coverage of the Trump-Russia narrative after the 2016 presidential election. 

“Yet early on, the story was already changing,” Rindsberg said. “Within a few days, there were doubts.” 

In February, the Times shifted gears to claim that Sicknick had been overcome by mace or bear spray — as references to his bloody head wound faded from view. Ten more stories followed, continuing to press the idea that Capitol violence had killed him. 

The Times reported that Russia had offered bounties to Taliban-linked militias for killing American troops in Afghanistan. But their story was false, relying solely on an intelligence assessment without any corroborating details.

The Times reported that Russia had offered bounties to Taliban-linked militias for killing American troops in Afghanistan. But their story was false, relying solely on an intelligence assessment without any corroborating details.

Not until April 19 did readers learn that Sicknick sustained no injuries at all in the melee, but had died of an unrelated stroke. 

“To the Times, Sicknick was the perfect symbol,” Rindsberg said. “A devoted police officer, by all accounts a good man, put in Trump’s crosshairs” — a fresh indictment of a president who, according to a much larger Times narrative, had been poisoning the American political system for his entire term. 

“When a symbol fits their narrative, they just cannot let it go.”

Similar hallmarks can be seen in the Russian bounties story, which the Times launched on June 26, 2020, Rindsberg said. 

“What they were reporting on was an intelligence assessment,” Rindsberg said, a government account that by its very nature is ambiguous and incomplete. 

The assessment alleged that a Russian intelligence unit had offered bounties to Taliban-linked militias for killing American and other coalition troops in Afghanistan. But it included no corroborating details on who if anyone had been paid, how much was offered, or even the source of the disclosure. 

Nonetheless, “the Times coverage quickly became conclusive,” Rindsberg said. Its initial story was framed in the most absolute of terms, claiming that “American intelligence officials have concluded” that bounties were offered — and that Trump had refused to take action on the information. 

“It was circular logic: We know that Trump is colluding with the Russians, therefore he doesn’t do anything about the bounties,” Rindsberg said. “And why doesn’t Trump do anything about the bounties? Because we know he’s colluding with the Russians.” 

Some of the paper’s top prize-winning reporters participated in follow-up stories that hammered on the theme for months, despite National Security Agency objections. 

“When the NSA began questioning the reliability of the intelligence, the Times was very quick to downplay that,” Rindsberg said. “Immediately, the story became that Trump was pressuring the NSA to cast those doubts. Just like that, they’ve tainted the counternarrative.” 

Ten months — and a presidential election — would pass before another media outlet, NBC, revealed that the initial intelligence had been “inconclusive” all along. 

“CIA intelligence assessments never have been, never will be considered the gospel truth,” Rindsberg said. “You just cannot rely on them. The New York Times should have known that. 

“But they did rely on it. The symbolism of the story was too good to give up.” 

The damage wrought by such powerful yet false symbolism is profound, Rindsberg concludes. 

“These narratives are interlocking,” Rindsberg said. “They have different nodes that connect to each other and strengthen each other in a network effect. 

“Maybe you can knock down one piece of the story, but it doesn’t affect the bigger false narrative, because the network is so robust.” 

And not even a retraction will dislodge it from our minds. 

“We already believe Sicknick was battered to death, because we were told that for a month every single day,” Rindsberg said. 

“And when the story turns out to be false, The New York Times does not do accountability,” he said. “It’s quiet little adjustments — updates to the Web pages, maybe run a small correction or an editor’s letter somewhere.” 

After at least 30 Times stories and columns linked Brian Sicknick’s death to the actions of the Jan. 6 rioters, news that the medical examiner had punctured the narrative ran on page A12. 

“Because they’re protecting the thing that is most valuable to them, their reputation,” Rindsberg said. “And doing it at the expense of the truth.”