4 ms·

Thanks for responding constructively instead of jumping on me for questioning the NYT. It is indeed hard work to find the real events. Is your CNN example supp

Thanks for responding constructively instead of jumping on me for questioning the NYT. It is indeed hard work to find the real events. Is your CNN example supposed to be an example of high-integrity news or fake news? My reading is that both CNN and Buzzfeed had the goal of propagating the dossier and wrote articles where everything they said was technically true so they could have a fig leaf of credibility while still getting the information out.

ivraatiems 10y ago
Given what I'd said, your question was a constructive one. The CNN example is a useful one because it is an example of both, in that it is an example of how "fake news" can mean "stuff I don't like/don't want to hear about/that makes me feel bad about my particular political preferences," and can also mean "poor reporting with clear biases." It might be fair to say that CNN wanted to propagate the dossier, for whatever reason. It's fair to say CNN has an editorial bias. What's not fair is to say are these things: 1) The dossier's existence wasn't worth reporting on once it had been made available. Even if it was one hundred percent false (not clear, and some parts have been independently verified, but not the important ones), the leaking of a classified piece of intelligence that was provided to the President of the United States in a briefing is 100% newsworthy. The fact that that intel is regarding something which may be false does not make it not worth reporting on, because the focus is not the document itself - it's that the document exists at all, and that the Trump administration is leaky enough not to be able to protect it. 2) CNN cannot do good reporting because they are biased. A partisan bias to some degree does not make their reporting wrong, because they adhered to ethical standards when they reported. That is, the meta-level of "this exists, but we aren't gonna speculate on what would happen if it were real" that CNN used is different and restrained compared to what Buzzfeed/HuffPo/whomever else did with it. CNN didn't start crowing about the evils of Trump or use the dossier to start a partisan conversation, it took the tack of "this exists and people have a right to know." 3) The fact that the dossier 'blew up' after CNN reported on it (really, after they reported on it being reported) is CNN's fault. Really, this goes back to Buzzfeed, and the way Buzzfeed reports. That, I think, is where the discussion over ethics should be focused - did Buzzfeed do the right thing in making the decision to report it, and in the way they reported it? The case there is not, to me, nearly as clear-cut. I think your read is not necessarily an unfair one, but what's important is not to dismiss CNN or Buzzfeed as a source of news because of it. Similarly, evidence exists that Wikileaks is a mouthpiece for the Russian intelligence complex. That might be quite true, but if it is, it doesn't make the Podesta emails not real, or change the importance of the Panama Papers, etc. That is, you can be 100% right about CNN's goals, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't know about the dossier or that the dossier is "fake news." It's real news, reported by someone who may or may not have an agenda.

ivraatiems 10y ago

Given what I'd said, your question was a constructive one. The CNN example is a useful one because it is an example of both, in that it is an example of how "fake news" can mean "stuff I don't like/don't want to hear about/that makes me feel bad about my particular political preferences," and can also mean "poor reporting with clear biases." It might be fair to say that CNN wanted to propagate the dossier, for whatever reason. It's fair to say CNN has an editorial bias. What's not fair is to say are these things: 1) The dossier's existence wasn't worth reporting on once it had been made available. Even if it was one hundred percent false (not clear, and some parts have been independently verified, but not the important ones), the leaking of a classified piece of intelligence that was provided to the President of the United States in a briefing is 100% newsworthy. The fact that that intel is regarding something which may be false does not make it not worth reporting on, because the focus is not the document itself - it's that the document exists at all, and that the Trump administration is leaky enough not to be able to protect it. 2) CNN cannot do good reporting because they are biased. A partisan bias to some degree does not make their reporting wrong, because they adhered to ethical standards when they reported. That is, the meta-level of "this exists, but we aren't gonna speculate on what would happen if it were real" that CNN used is different and restrained compared to what Buzzfeed/HuffPo/whomever else did with it. CNN didn't start crowing about the evils of Trump or use the dossier to start a partisan conversation, it took the tack of "this exists and people have a right to know." 3) The fact that the dossier 'blew up' after CNN reported on it (really, after they reported on it being reported) is CNN's fault. Really, this goes back to Buzzfeed, and the way Buzzfeed reports. That, I think, is where the discussion over ethics should be focused - did Buzzfeed do the right thing in making the decision to report it, and in the way they reported it? The case there is not, to me, nearly as clear-cut. I think your read is not necessarily an unfair one, but what's important is not to dismiss CNN or Buzzfeed as a source of news because of it. Similarly, evidence exists that Wikileaks is a mouthpiece for the Russian intelligence complex. That might be quite true, but if it is, it doesn't make the Podesta emails not real, or change the importance of the Panama Papers, etc. That is, you can be 100% right about CNN's goals, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't know about the dossier or that the dossier is "fake news." It's real news, reported by someone who may or may not have an agenda.