3 ms·

How is that the problem? Can you cite some examples?

fareesh 10y ago
There are multiple reporters who colluded with the Clinton campaign to push a specific narrative during the election. In one example, Glenn Thrush went so far as to call himself a hack in one of the emails to her campaign chairman, which he ended with "Please don't tell anyone I did this". Granted there's a difference between bias and a completely fabricated article about something that did not happen, but presenting half the story is also problematic, as is coordinating with the people who the story is being written about. Unfortunately, if one were to entertain the idea of banning Politico, it would be considered an affront to the idea of freedom of the press. By agreeing to allow biased coverage to profit from advertising, Facebook is essentially saying that you can do this as long as you don't get caught. By the same yardstick, several right leaning media companies are guilty of the same sin, but the fact that we have proof in this case suggests that this is a standard practice in the industry, which reveals that honest reporting may only exist upto a particular point. Source: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681
- ec109685 10y ago
  Hack language aside, wasn't he asking if the article had an falsehoods in it? How do you expect reporters to have access to "sources inside the X campaign" without making an effort to build relationships and trust?
forgingahead 10y ago
This article does a great job highlighting the double standards halfway down: http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/how-the-mainstream-media-destroyed-itself-with-a-little-help-from-donald-trump/news-story/67952f876e42ee61ca794c9ccd370b41 http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/how-the-mainst...
forgottenpass 10y ago
How is that the problem? An obviously detectable "fake" news site is kinda benign compared to a serious looking outlet that tells the reader what they want to hear regardless of accuracy. Remember when Jon Stewart spent a decade arguing that Fox News was doing a disservice to the country? Do you think Breitbart, HuffPo or any of the Gawker properties do better at informing the public.

There are multiple reporters who colluded with the Clinton campaign to push a specific narrative during the election. In one example, Glenn Thrush went so far as to call himself a hack in one of the emails to her campaign chairman, which he ended with "Please don't tell anyone I did this". Granted there's a difference between bias and a completely fabricated article about something that did not happen, but presenting half the story is also problematic, as is coordinating with the people who the story is being written about. Unfortunately, if one were to entertain the idea of banning Politico, it would be considered an affront to the idea of freedom of the press. By agreeing to allow biased coverage to profit from advertising, Facebook is essentially saying that you can do this as long as you don't get caught. By the same yardstick, several right leaning media companies are guilty of the same sin, but the fact that we have proof in this case suggests that this is a standard practice in the industry, which reveals that honest reporting may only exist upto a particular point. Source: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681

ec109685 10y ago
Hack language aside, wasn't he asking if the article had an falsehoods in it? How do you expect reporters to have access to "sources inside the X campaign" without making an effort to build relationships and trust?

forgingahead 10y ago

This article does a great job highlighting the double standards halfway down: http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/how-the-mainstream-media-destroyed-itself-with-a-little-help-from-donald-trump/news-story/67952f876e42ee61ca794c9ccd370b41 http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/how-the-mainst...

forgottenpass 10y ago

How is that the problem? An obviously detectable "fake" news site is kinda benign compared to a serious looking outlet that tells the reader what they want to hear regardless of accuracy. Remember when Jon Stewart spent a decade arguing that Fox News was doing a disservice to the country? Do you think Breitbart, HuffPo or any of the Gawker properties do better at informing the public.