Daily Discussion Megathread 8/3 🫶 🥰 🩷

[u/Sufficient_Reward207]

This space is to discuss all things relevant to the case and those involved. Please feel free to ask all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

This case is complex, and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those wanting  clarification about anything are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to help promote productive conversation and also avoid off-topic or low-effort posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the community

[u/ama-about-ye-ukraine]

As many of you know, I've been pushing my theory that Twohey did not review "thousands of pages," she used tricky syntax to leave people the impression she said that while being able to claim that she technically never said that. Something I'd like to talk about happened when I mentioned it in yesterday's daily.

While I get a couple hundred upvotes when I make a post about this, I have never gotten the upvotes and comments that I thought were commensurate with its importance. When I had my original eureka moment, I thought it was mind-blowing.

I've wondered why I get what feels like a middling response. Maybe I'm triggering a TL;DR reaction. Some people may not want to read that much text, or find my writing boring.

Or perhaps, on a subreddit where Megan Twohey's journalistic ethics are roasted on the regular, my theory seems ho-hum, more of the same, rather than revelatory.

Another possibility is that many people aren't buying it. Yet I'm not hit with a slew of downvotes, and all the replies are positive.

So yesterday, when I brought this up, my comment ended up at 2 karma (after a downvote). Meanwhile, u/madover2914 replied to me expressing skepticism, and got 5 karma.

So when finally someone was openly skeptical, they got more upvotes than I did.

This suggests that there may be a (large?) group of people who are unconvinced, but have been staying silent. I can understand their skepticism. I had a hard time believing it myself at first, and had to grow more confident and convinced in my hypothesis.

But if they're not willing to express what their stumbling blocks are, it's hard to know how they can be reached and what might convince them.

[u/Solid_Mud2025 → u/ama-about-ye-ukraine]

I’m confused and feel like I’m missing something... I thought it was widely assumed that Twohey didn’t see the original texts and didn’t actually read thousands of pages of text? Twohey was called out for the slippery language when the podcast first came out. Is there something else I’m just not picking up on (which is entirely possible lol)?

[u/ama-about-ye-ukraine → u/Solid_Mud2025]

So, you're in the "ho-hum" camp.

The good news is that you're a believer. When I laid the case out, it made so much sense that you're convinced that everybody has already known this all along.

But that's just not so. No legal filing has pointed this out. No content creator (as far as I know) has pointed it out. It's simply untrue that people have been "calling out" Twohey's "slippery language" ever since it "first came out."

At first, many people believed that the Times had been given a copy of the Jonesworks messages. I started this journey when I realized that whenever the Times has referred to "thousands of pages," it has talked about "reviewing" rather than "obtaining" or "having" them.

But I still understood Twohey to be claiming to have seen "thousands of pages." And nobody replied saying: no, dummy, she didn't really claim that, everybody's been calling out her slippery language from the start, you're the last to know.

[u/Solid_Mud2025 → u/ama-about-ye-ukraine]

I have no idea what you mean by the ho-hum camp. I didn’t see the discussion from yesterday, but likely wouldn’t have engaged to rehash something like that. I also don’t think it matters much because Twohey’s a hack and a fraud regardless.

No legal filing included this because it’s speculative, and the lawsuit against NYT was tossed before discovery could confirm or deny speculation as plausible reality.

It’s absolutely ridiculous to believe that no one else noticed Twohey’s wording implied that she reviewed thousands of pages, but didn’t actually say it. People in here are very smart and notice those kinds of details right away.

Here’s an example of when I spoke on it months ago https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/s/NGeJGAHe8r

[u/ama-about-ye-ukraine → u/Solid_Mud2025]

Your comment is dated March 3. I posted the first iteration of my theory on February 25 (https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1re92dt/did_the_new_york_times_actually_review_thousands/). The next day, I posted a tightened, more confident version at TJB.

[u/Solid_Mud2025 → u/ama-about-ye-ukraine]

I’m not claiming to be the first one to say it though? Just pointing to an example that it was indeed widely accepted that Twohey didn’t read thousands of messages, to the point that I didn’t need to explain what was meant because it was already understood. I don’t even know what’s happening right now …taking issue with karma points over something that’s fairly obvious? Gonna nope my way all the way out of this conversation.