From the New York Times the news is that Thomas Perez, Obama's former labor secretary narrowly won the vote for chairman of the Democratic party and that the favorite, Congressman Keith Ellison, lost.
From The Intercept is the same story but with this opening paragraph
MINNESOTA DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN Keith Ellison lost his bid to become the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Saturday after a scorched-earth smear campaign targeting his religious faith, his affinity for the Nation of Islam in his youth, and his support for Palestinian rights alongside a secure Israel.
What makes the NYT fake news is that this angle is not even mentioned in their front page article. That Ellison is a Muslim or his stance on Israel is not even mentioned. That prominent Jews would leave the party would leave if Ellison won was unsaid in the Times. As I said before, a journalistic nod to this unsettling information would be valuable info but to the Times it doesn't exist and yet it is the entire angle of The Intercept's story. Is the Intercept bombastic in it's indignation over this? Maybe, a bit, but at least it is informational. The Times, fake news.
Ok. Let's use this example.
First off...let's look at the NYT link you provided. Oh wait! You didn't provide one. Here's what appears to be their main story on the vote:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/u ... ction.html
Compare that to the Intercept story you seemingly accept as "real news":https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.the ... stine.html
The NYT article gives a lot of detail about the various currents running through the race. But you are right - they omit any mention of a "scorched earth smear campaign" against Ellison. The problem is...so does the Intercept. They make the charge - but they characterize the following as a campaign:
1. The stated opinions of Haim Saban and Alan Dershowitz.
2. An email sent by Jack Rosen of the American Jewish Congress to DNC members to reject Ellison's bid.
3. A statement of opposition from the anti-defamation league.
4. The fact that Perez (horrors!) spoke to Jewish groups (without making any reference to Ellison's past statements at all).
Does the above actually add up to a "scorched-earth campaign? Was it actually a central issue in the DNC chair selection process? The Intercept doesn't even attempt to make that case.
They do inexplicably take a short diversion to mention that South Carolina DNC chair Jamie Harrison was whipping votes at the gathering...something that was inferred as problematic due to association with the John Podesta Group. The Intercept doesn't bother to explain the inclusion of this data-point. It's just thrown in as if to insinuate something shady.
But that is, in your opinion...the "real" news, eh Jimbo?
I'll actually agree that the Times could have made their story more complete by mentioning Ellison's troubles with the Jewish Community (though it could be viewed as perpetuating a smear if they had). That said, the NYT story mentions that Ellison and Perez seemed pretty amiable with each other during the campaign...and were even seen dining together this week. That story is corroborated elsewhere by other news sources like this:https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/ ... ions%3Famp
So if the New York Times is "fake news" for leaving out the Ellison's Jewish tensions - does that make the Intercept fake news for leaving out the evidence of mutual cooperation between Ellison and Perez?
More to the point - can you just admit that you liked the slant of the Intercept piece more, because it plays to your bias?
C'mon...just admit it.