But that did not stop social media commenters from leaping to conclusions and from showing a blatant lack of sympathy over the death of a man who was a husband and father of two children.
Don't be clueless, NYT. Similar to the blatant lack of sympathy shown by corporate execs over the damages their policies cause in the pursuit of infinite increases to the bottom line? I mean, after a few tens of thousands of collective years of life lost I guess human suffering is just a statistic... The C-suite is well paid enough to not waste too much concern over it. In fact, they probably get paid more for less money spent on those liabilities. All those people denied care were wives, husbands, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, daughters, sons....you get the idea. His life is NOT worth more than those he traded for shareholder approval.
I more or less stopped paying attention to NYT in 2002-2003 when they so gleefully cheerlead the Iraq2 campaign. And I feel dumb it took me that long. They don't exist to do anything except manufacture consent.
I will never forgive their complicity in the Iraq war and I treat anyone who reads the NYT without simultaneously harboring a constant distaste for it as fundamentally unserious in their practice of educating themselves about reality.