4 ms·
The Washington Post corrected their story. This is a key differentiator for higher quality publications. They try to get it right but if they don't, they must p
by athenot 10y ago
The Washington Post corrected their story. This is a key differentiator for higher quality publications. They try to get it right but if they don't, they must prompty correct their article.
The article from The Intercept comes across as more alarmist than the original one from the Post. The second paragraph reads:
> While the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a security matter, the discovery underscores the vulnerabilities of the nation’s electrical grid.
There's a nuance that seems to be lost in Greenwald's interpretation of the article.
- tootie 10y agoGreenwald is like Assange in that regard. He's more interested in scoring points against the bad guys than doing a public service. Any public service he has provided in the past is purely coincidental.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- raverbashing 10y ago> There's a nuance that seems to be lost in Greenwald's interpretation of the article. It's not lost, it is deliberate Make no mistake, GG has no interest in the truth, he is only interested in furthering his agenda. Which, in this case, of pushing mistrust in mainstream media, is shared in common with alt-right sites
- rhizome 10y agoThe mainstream media has earned the mistrust, Greenwald isn't powerful enough to impose it.
- raverbashing 10y ago> The mainstream media has earned the mistrust, I completely agree > Greenwald isn't powerful enough to impose it. Correct, but it's the collective push of "independent" news sites, including The Intercept And as much as they push for the "Mainstream media is untrustworthy" agenda, guess what, they are less trustworthy than the mainstream media. But it's more insidious
- monochromatic 10y agoNobody[0] reads corrections. The damage is done when the original, incorrect, inflammatory article is published. You can't unring that bell, and the Washington Post editors know that. [0] To within experimental error.
- maguirre 10y agoI would argue that a reasonable person would actually read a correction. it's not exactly un ringing a bell but many of us come away with the truth even if we believed the original at first
- rhizome 10y agoI don't think that's reasonable at all. How often do you return to story URLs you've already read to check whether they've changed or not?
- RodericDay 10y agoThis too charitable to the Washington Post, who recently published that ridiculous PropOrNot piece. It's much more likely that they know they can publish something fake, get the desired public impact, and then retract it and retain credibility. The Washington Post is not a "higher quality publication".
- ChuckMcM 10y agoAn interesting showhn project would be to continually scrape a story and make an externally visible commit log for it so that you could see how it changed over time.
- Sacho 10y agoLike this one? http://newsdiffs.org/ http://newsdiffs.org/