I'm not sure specifically what the 'ny times fat story' is without more context. It could be about various aspects related to the topic of fat, such as health issues associated with excess body fat, cultural views on fat, or perhaps a story about a particular person's experience with being overweight or dealing with fat - related matters.
I'm not sure specifically which 'ny times trump story' you're referring to. The New York Times has covered many stories related to Trump. It could be about his political campaigns, his policies, or various events during his time in office.
No, the New York Times has not retracted the Sicknick story. The reporting on Sicknick was part of a broader narrative about events that took place. While there may be different viewpoints and some争议 around the details, the NY Times has stood by its reporting. There have been no official statements or actions from the newspaper to suggest that they are taking back what they initially reported regarding Sicknick.
One key point is the sequence of events on 9/11. Another is the human stories of loss and survival. Also, the role of the media in reporting the event as it happened.
When commenting on a NY Times story, I often focus on the relevance of the topic to the current social or political climate. If the story is about a new policy, for instance, I consider how it will impact different groups of people. I also check if the story has updated information. Sometimes, older stories can be misleading as new developments may have occurred. Another aspect is the credibility of the sources within the story. If the sources are not reliable, it weakens the entire story. Based on these evaluations, I can then write a comment that either praises the story for its good reporting or points out its flaws.
Ethically, when commenting on a NY Times story, one should avoid spreading false information. If you're not sure about a fact, it's better to research it first. Also, respect the privacy of the individuals mentioned in the story. For example, if it's a story about a crime victim, don't use their name or details in a way that could cause further harm. Additionally, don't use offensive language. This maintains the integrity of the discussion around the story.
The 'ny times kavanaugh story' is mainly about Brett Kavanaugh. It probably delved into the sexual assault allegations he faced during his nomination to the Supreme Court. The story might have included details about the accusers, their testimonies, and Kavanaugh's responses. The New York Times could have also explored how this affected the political climate in the United States, as the nomination was a highly politicized event. There were strong opinions on both sides, with some believing the accusations and others supporting Kavanaugh's confirmation.
I'm not entirely sure specifically about what the 'ny times west side story' is. It could potentially be about the musical 'West Side Story' as covered by The New York Times. Maybe it's a review, an analysis of its cultural impact, or a story related to a production in the West Side and covered by the NYT.
I'm not entirely sure specifically which 'ny times trump obstruction story' you're referring to without more details. Generally, stories about obstruction in relation to Trump might be about alleged actions that could have hindered investigations or proper governance processes.
The New York Times has a reputation for being a reliable source, but like any news story, there can be different perspectives. Their reporting on Trump obstruction likely went through editorial scrutiny and fact - checking. However, some might view it as having a political slant depending on their own beliefs.