Fake News NWDC edition - too appalled to even shake my head

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The media didn't make up the lie. They reported what they were told by a first hand witness (who it later turned out was lying).

The media gave him a huge platform and pushed the story. They repeated it and repeated it and repeated it--even though the witness did not have a sterling record. Network tv hosts perpetuated it and there are pictures of whole panels of television personalities on (CNN? or was it MSNBC sitting there with their hands up). No matter what other elements are in play here, that saying was begun in Ferguson and it did lead to assassination of policemen. Even HRC had Michael Brown's mother on the stage at the DNC--and that was a slap in the face to policemen everywhere. Her son was not an innocent.

Ok, but that's not the same as anonymous people on the internet making stuff up. It's not. They are not equivalent. You can be mad about that journalistic failure, but it is total BS to say that because the media relied on a poor witness, its reasonable for other people to believe conspiracy theories. Which seems to be what you are arguing.

If you cannot understand that false stories pushed by mainstream media are far more serious than internet conspiracy theories, you are not facing reality.
Look at the mess at UVA because of the Rolling Stone article. It was written by a so-called journalist--but it was totally fake.
Stores like this cause people to question any news at all. There are far two many failures by so-called journalists. These are far more troublesome. Fake news is fake. And, it is worse when it is pushed by so called respected media. A lie is a lie is a lie.

False equivalency.

It's not like the author made up the story. She relied on someone who presented as a victim, and on witnesses.

[Anonymous]

False equivalency.

It's not like the author made up the story. She relied on someone who presented as a victim, and on witnesses.

No. And, how is that different. The story was made up. She did not talk to any witnesses except for those that "Jackie" chose for her to talk to. She did not vet the story. Period. What good is having a journalist write a story if so-called journalist does not fact check. This is no different than a conspiracy story on the internet--yet, it is far more damaging.

What would be the difference with this than a story created on the internet? This story was worse because it had far more credibility--since it was written by a "journalist".......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The difference is that a legitimate press source prints retraction when they get it wrong.

A fake news site just keeps raking in the clickbaity money. Pt barnum was right. And conservatives live fake news because they can't handle reality.

FOX News, Breitbart, Daily Caller and other conservative news outlets get it wrong all the time but they never run retractions.

I guess that means they aren't legitimate press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference is that a legitimate press source prints retraction when they get it wrong.

A fake news site just keeps raking in the clickbaity money. Pt barnum was right. And conservatives live fake news because they can't handle reality.

FOX News, Breitbart, Daily Caller and other conservative news outlets get it wrong all the time but they never run retractions.

I guess that means they aren't legitimate press.

Fox does retract things when pressed - here's a recent retraction which was pretty big news:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/fox-news-apologizes-for-falsely-reporting-that-clinton-faces-indictment/2016/11/04/8fd56f20-a2b7-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?utm_term=.ddd46ed6a744

Breitbart and Daily Caller are fake news.