It was a big week for the New York Times and New York Magazine.
But, like the rest of the world, I was surprised at the way it came out.
It is one of those times that, with a certain amount of trepidation, I want to think that I might be wrong.
This time around, the Times had its most powerful, most influential story of the year, the one that has the potential to influence how we think about journalism and our way of life.
This is the kind of thing that the New Yorker has been doing for decades.
As the first-ever book on how to tell if you’re really a fugget or not, it is not just the best news story of 2016; it is the best of journalism.
It’s a new way of thinking about news and reporting that is also fundamentally important to understanding the world around us.
But I think the New Times story on the importance of fudging can be tricky to wrap your head around.
It involves a lot of fakery, a lot about fudging the truth.
As we have seen with the Russian hacking scandal, fake news and fake news stories can have real, damaging consequences for democracy.
But the truth is, we don’t know how often the people who run newspapers are lying.
The Times has spent a lot more time on the subject of fudges than on the fact that it is impossible to be 100% sure of your own story.
And while that is an important point, it misses the larger issue of how we deal with the stories we do publish.
This problem is central to how journalism should work.
The best news stories are stories that have a clear conclusion.
They tell you why you made the decision to publish something.
But there is also the possibility that, after reading that story, you might think about the decision more deeply and decide that it was the right one.
So it is a mistake to think of the fudging as something that happens only to a few people.
I am not saying that the Times and other news outlets are intentionally misleading.
But if the Times is really fudging, it means that some people are deliberately manipulating the reporting and the reporting is often inaccurate.
The New Yorker is not a perfect news organization.
There are journalists who take on more of a public role than others and some of them are in a position of power.
But it is true that the vast majority of its stories are not made up of fictions.
I do not think it is fair to say that the media are deliberately misleading the public.
But we should be careful not to assume that the information is true because it is fake.
The problem comes when you read stories that you believe are fiction and it turns out to be true.
For example, the fake news in the story about how a fake Twitter account hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails had nothing to do with a Russian state-owned news agency.
The fake news came from an account that was created by a hacker who was in the process of hacking Hillary Clinton.
The hacker used the Twitter account to create a fake account, then published it to fake news sites, which led to fake tweets.
This fake news is part of what led to the release of the emails.
But this fake news does not change the fact they are real.
This was not a fake story that was published to make a political point.
It was fake news, and the people behind it had the right idea.
But because it was fake, it was not true.
The story was a story of how a hacker with the right intentions made up a story and published it without attribution.
The hacking is fake news because it wasn’t real.
The real news is that the hacker was not doing anything wrong, and he was trying to tell the world that this is what happened.
It doesn’t change the reality of what happened in the emails, because there was nothing in the hacked emails that anyone could have known was in them.
The hackers, however, didn’t publish the emails themselves, they were published by WikiLeaks.
They published them as a result of the fact there was an email exchange between the Clinton campaign and WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks has published hundreds of thousands of emails and thousands of pages of documents that were not made public by the Clinton camp.
There is no reason to believe that the hackers were trying to deceive the public or mislead anyone.
But they did publish them.
There was no fake news here.
The issue is whether the fake stories were fake or not.
The news organizations that publish fake news are not doing a good job of reporting on the real stories, and that is not fair.
It should be clear that there is a difference between fake and real news.
The media can report on the true news of the day.
That is what we do with all the stories that we report.
But fake news can have far-reaching consequences and even have real consequences.
Fake news can create