Does anyone want to go past the paywall to find if this is anything more than the NYT doing their "parrot Republican attacks without nuance" trick?
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
-20 points (14.3% liked)
News
33354 readers
3153 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
-20
How Fraud Swamped Minnesota’s Social Services System on Tim Walz’s Watch [NY Times]
(www.nytimes.com)
Just for future reference:
- There's already an Archive link in the post, which bypasses the paywall and doesn't give the original site any clicks. This also archives the article in general for future consumption in case the OG site takes it down for any reason.
- If you run across a post that doesn't have an archive link alongside it, you can make your own by pasting the real link at the end of an Archive URL, like so:
archive.ph/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/us/fraud-minnesota-somali.html
archive.is also works
I read the article. It seems like some leftist organizations screwed the State by threatening to sue them and accuse them of racism if they didn’t approve the aid applications, so the State—not wanting to get sued, have bad press, and potentially alienate Democrats-supporting voters—approved the applications without thoroughly checking them, and thus allowing fraudulent applications to slip through.
There’s no Republican attack in there, it’s just facts. Now, it’s absolute gold to their Republican opponents, which is a shame in my view, but it’s no reason to deny the truth. Waltz and his government need to keep their goals the same but improve their implementation, and leftist organizations need to stop eating our own with frivolous, politically-motivated lawsuits.
We just gave Minnesota Republicans uranium-tipped bullets via our own fuck up. We need to stop doing that.
EDIT: And apparently voters in this sub prefer a ton of copium.
I got through about the first four paragraphs, and there were obvious bad-faith Republican attacks. To paraphrase and edit:
"This fraud's total potential revenue [over an unstated number of years] was greater than the state spent on prisons [for a single year]."
No objections to most of the rest of what you said, but this article is definitely a Republican slant pretending to be impartial.
If you check out the author’s bio, he doesn’t sound like a Republican sympathizer to me. You pick a tiny bit of incoherence in the article and dismiss it entirely? You’re the one who sounds like they’ve got a slant. You didn’t even finish the piece. You sound like you’re dismissing it simply because you don’t like what it’s saying. That’s bad information consumption.
I didnt dismiss it entirely. I merely noted that the part I read includes a solid example of the biggest complaint against the grey lady over the past several years : that they parrott Republican attacks without challenge or clarification.
The part I paraphrased wasn't "incoherence" -- it's an analogy specially chosen to outrage and motivate Republican voters, which was printed "above the fold" and may well have gone unchallenged in the whole rest of the article.
And while the bylined author presumably as you say a wholesome journalist who would never cause such distortion, they're also an employee and not responsible or empowered to edit, format, or headline their work.
You may have read the article, but the article doesn’t tell the whole story and only focuses on one of the groups. The others were in fact your run of the mill conservative grifters looting things.
Should they have vetted them more thoroughly? Yes, probably. But it was also Covid and they were responding to a food crisis.
NYT is shitting the bed on this one, and outside of some of our more rabid republicans in MN, no one is really buying it here. You know. The kind of republicans that think they’re putting litter boxes in elementary schools, for the students.