How the body of its OWN article proves the lie
February 28, 2015
In a screaming headline the New York Times announces
The body of the article explains more “objectively” that there are several theories being explored and this was just one of them.
So at first this looks like another propaganda-headline where the headline (that everyone reads, repeats and retweets adding their own outraged commentary) does not quite match the main thrust of the article (that few people read in these busy times).
But this is worse than the usual propaganda: it’s an outright lie as per anything quoted in the article.
The specific theory that this refers to is that (to quote from the article)
That line of investigation would examine whether Mr. Nemtsov, a 55-year-old former first deputy prime minister and longtime leader of the opposition, had become a “sacrificial victim” to rally support for opponents of the government, the Investigative Committee of the Prosecutor General’s Office said in a statement.
Leaving aside the FACT that the construction of the statement above implies that Nemtsov was a “leader of the opposition” (he was NOT – read a timeline both at Wiki and RT), where does this specifically say that “Fellow Opposition Members” may be to blame?
The theory in this regard is simply that those opposed to the Government (which can include domestic insurgents to foreign intelligence agencies) may be trying to foment unrest. It does not state “Fellow Opposition Members”, or the SBU (the Ukrainian Secret Service), CIA or any other agency.
The New York Times headline writers opted for a very specific interpretation of what the Russian authorities said as one of many speculative theories, and plastered that as a headline giving the clear impression to the busy reader that this was only what Russian authorities were exploring. (The one weasel word “may” in the headline gives a bit of a fig leaf)
A headline like “Russian Authorities Pursuing Several Speculative Theories” would have been dryer but accurate. But dry accuracy is dull, which is why the National Inquirer and apparently the New York Times, go for zing.