Saying "Soleimani was like MLK" is very, very different from saying "Soleimani was as important to Iranians as MLK is to Americans." A guest on a NYT podcast made the case for the latter; in that same podcast, the same person also made these statements:
"The Shia militia that he helped create were also responsible for attacks on U.S. soldiers, for the killing of U.S. soldiers, and for civilian deaths."
"This is a man who was responsible for a lot of violence and a lot of mayhem in the region, and a lot of activity that most Iranians may not agree with, that (they) do not like."
Citing the opinion of a single guest contributor on a podcast as evidence of the entire publication's support for terrorist leaders is a bit of a leap, especially considering that the NYT has not shied away from presenting evidence that he was exactly that. Hell, they even published an opinion article entitled "Suleimani died as he had killed" that opened with "Reasonable people will debate the likeliest ramifications of President Trump’s decision to order the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani...What shouldn’t be in doubt is the justice." The NYT is reporting the facts of this story in its articles (the ones that don't have the Opinion label at the top), and presenting more than one perspective on those facts in its Opinion pieces.
That's just comprehensive journalism.
I suspect Matthews was making a similar comparison, but I don't pay enough attention to his ridiculousness to say for sure. What he does isn't exactly what I consider to be reputable journalism.
Caption this Meme
