The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia who is responsible for killing over 5,000 civilians in Yemen is a 'progressive reformer' according to the New York Times
The New York Times has historically been responsible for some wonderful and deeply crucial pieces of journalism. In 2017, however, they merely function as a Public Relations firm for the world's richest and most powerful individuals.
A heinous recent example of this is Tom Friedman's puff piece on Saudi Crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. After being wined and dined lavishly in Riyadh, Friedman came to the conclusion that the man who is responsible for mass genocide in Yemen is actually a super awesome guy who definitely respects human rights.
You can find the piece here. The NYT is softly paywalled though.
Responses to the piece on Twitter ranged from mockery to pure rage. Here are my highlights:
Worst of all, Congressional employees have reported that lobbyists for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are sharing the article with US lawmakers. When I say that the New York Times now work in Public Relations, I'm not joking. That is quite literally what this article represents.
@originalworks
The @OriginalWorks bot has determined this post by @thatsnumberwang to be original material and upvoted(1.5%) it!
To call @OriginalWorks, simply reply to any post with @originalworks or !originalworks in your message!
Actually, there is nothing any contributor to the New York Times could EVER write that could convince the world that any one of the Saudi royal family is good at heart and want reformation.
The recent shake-up is no attempt at reform, it is simply one group of bad actors taking over from another group of bad actors. I am not fooled by this round-up. They are ALL evil.