5 ms·
Rolling Stone lost all credibility after publishing that fake rape story.
by newswriter99 10y ago
Rolling Stone lost all credibility after publishing that fake rape story.
- astrodust 10y agoOne story, all credibility, huh? You must live in a world where nobody is credible. The New York Times has suffered hits to its credibility, fake photographers, plagiarism and such, but that doesn't necessarily negate all the work done by their talented staff. There's still good work being done there despite those setbacks. It's a fallacy to instantly discount everything as without merit, putting it on the same level as Breitbart. Like always you need to regard things with a critical eye.
- baobrain 10y agoI would highly recommend checking out the Columbia school of journalism's analysis.[0] While other publications have had lapses in journalistic integrity, rolling stones case is especially egregious. Along every step of the way, the writer and her editors violated the basics of journalistic integrity, like not fact checking and trusting one side. [0]http://www.cjr.org/investigation/rolling_stone_investigation.php http://www.cjr.org/investigation/rolling_stone_investigation...
- Chris2048 10y ago> One story, all credibility, huh? Yes. The "story" made specific criminal accusations. > You must live in a world where nobody is credible. Publications are held to a different standard. > New York Times... but that doesn't necessarily negate all the work It just means you can no longer trust the publication. > putting it on the same level as Breitbart Here we go. Tell me what's wrong with Breitbart?
- phaemon 10y ago> Here we go. Tell me what's wrong with Breitbart? Every story they run on climate change is a pile of innumerate, scientifically illiterate crap? Those are the only stories I see from them as they get quoted for amusement value sometimes on the Sea Ice forums. But maybe their sports coverage is good or something. Who knows.
- Chris2048 10y ago> Who knows. You, apparently, since you talked of "the same level as Breitbart", though don't apparently know what that is. Also, if you have specific knowledge of a subject area, you might be inclined to a kind of reversal of the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect: judging a publication on you area of expertise alone, when publications may differ in their relative strengths.
- phaemon 10y agoNo I didn't, that was `astrodust`, not me. I was just providing an example of something that was wrong with them.
- Chris2048 10y agoSorry, my mistake. On the other hand.. You answered for them? Only astrodust can know what problem astrodust has with Breitbart...
- astrodust 10y agoYou must be living under a rock. They're a tabloid on par with Weekly World News. http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/14/media/breitbart-incendiary-headlines/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/14/media/breitbart-incendiary-h...
- insickness 10y agoYou're linking to CNN, who told us that it was illegal for anyone but CNN journalists to read Wikileaks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE
- Chris2048 10y agoA page full of snippets with little context. Just to pick one: 'A July article suggested that research revealed "women might just suck at job interviews."' Is this claim false?
- astrodust 10y ago> Tell me what's wrong with Breitbart? You have got to be fucking kidding. If you don't know what's wrong with Breitbart you have absolutely no place to criticize anyone.
- Chris2048 10y agoPeople said the same thing about Hilary. I guess we both have blind-spots, so let's share the evidence. There's been a lot of fake news around.