5 ms·
It becomes a finer line when you have the Washington Post reporting (more accurately reporting an "expert" claim) that hillary Clinton may have been poisoned on
by cmac2992 10y ago
It becomes a finer line when you have the Washington Post reporting (more accurately reporting an "expert" claim) that hillary Clinton may have been poisoned on 9/11 by Putin.
- pas 10y agoUmm, could you link to that maybe?
- smt88 10y agohttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/12/the-man-who-discovered-cte-thinks-hillary-clinton-may-have-been-poisoned/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/12... They didn't report it as fact. They reported it as, "This respected guy is saying this thing."
- cmac2992 10y agohttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/12/the-man-who-discovered-cte-thinks-hillary-clinton-may-have-been-poisoned/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/12... Even though they aren't claiming these claims are true, its at the very least, incredibly misleading. They spend most of the article talking about how Putin has poisoned people in the past, and talking up the Drs credentials. There should be a disclosure that the claims are unsubstantiated. Or it should never have been posted. That said the Washington post did some of the best reporting this election season.
- smt88 10y agoThere was no "claim" to disclaim by saying it's unsubstantiated. The original tweet was just that Clinton should be tested for poisons, not that she was definitely (or even likely) poisoned. It's true that headlines like these cause people to become certain about what is an unsubstantiated idea. But it's also within the realm of possibility that Putin did try to poison Clinton. It would be far from the most egregious thing he's ever tried to do, and (as the story describes) he's done it before.
- tptacek 10y agoNo, it doesn't. This is again a false equivalence. Stories in the mainstream press can be slanted, or even false --- stories are retracted all the time! That doesn't make them "fakenews". Fakenews sites are spam, fabricated out of whole cloth.
- daxorid 10y agoIt is not "fine" at all. CNN last week intentionally reported the absurd claim that Richard Spencer questioned whether Jews are people. They knew it was incorrect, and reported it anyway. Only later did they issue a quiet retraction. This is par for the course for US media organizations.
- tptacek 10y agoReconstituting the same false equivalences over and over again isn't going to make the argument any more compelling. Really, you're just making the case for us. Two responses: 1. CNN misapprehended Spencer's comment, which wasn't about whether Jewish people are human, but instead whether members of the mainstream media are. The story wasn't fabricated --- it was misreported. Again: the media does not have to be perfect for us to reasonably talk about "fakenews", which is webspam consisting of entirely fabricated stories. 2. Here's something you will not see happening on fakenews sites: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3961672/CNN-Jake-Tapper-apologize-unacceptable-banner-text.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3961672/CNN-Jake-Tap... Look! A retraction! PS: It's worth adding that part of the uproar over this CNN chyron is because Spencer is in fact a white supremacist and does in fact have strong anti-Semitic views, and CNN was in part being accused of amplifying those views.
- meira 10y agoYou are just saying that MSM way of handling fake news is more professional than alt right fake news. I think it only makes the matter worse.