This article is a great example on how the @nytimes coverage of Indigenous issues doesn’t meet the basic standards of journalism. This article grossly misrepresents what happened in the underlying custody cases and the people behind the lawsuit.
This article is a great example on how the @nytimes coverage of Indigenous issues doesn’t meet the basic standards of journalism. This article grossly misrepresents what happened in the underlying custody cases and the people behind the lawsuit.
The placement didn’t “fall through”. The Brackeens brought a legal arsenal that you never seen in Family Court—the corporate law firm that represents Walmart, Amazon, and Chevron and the State AG of Texas. Only then, did the tribes agree to the adoption.
@rebeccanagle @nytimes Is the NYT a racist mouthpiece for the establishment?
@rebeccanagle @saragoldrickrab @nytimes Well, the NYT is rubbish so this is par for the course.
@rebeccanagle @TchKimPossible @nytimes not to mention NYT was prolly there was the initial piece of legislation along w/ the custody cases they NOW want to represent