4 ms·

True, there are 100 per cent people on vendettas hatchet jobs but more reputable publishers are better at curtailing the ill-will of a single writer.

by dp141 8y ago

nailer 8y ago
There are many people that believe CNN is a reputable publisher. Even after the Japan fish feeding hoax, fabrications about the contents of the Damore memo, and even denying their own "I'm sure in individual cases" interview with Obama administration re: child seperation this last 24 hours. Quick edit due to downmods: dear partisan Americans: I don't particularly care for either side of your politics. I'm not saying Fox is any better, and I think Donald Trump's a nasty and very hypocritical individual. But 1 and 3 are easily proven false on video, and 2 is clearly different from the content of the Damore memo, which you can read online. You're lying to yourself if you refuse to believe evidence about CNN fabricating any of these stories. As @Notradamus says before, giving a quote to a journalist allows them to shape the story. There is no reason to do that: you can self publish and still reach the masses in your own words, without risking someone else cutting video, lying about you, or denying something happened even when they filmed it themselves.
- icebraining 8y ago
  I'm not a partisan American (particularly not the latter), but I find your anti-CNN rant to be an irrelevant distraction in this topic.
  - nailer 8y ago
    The parent makes the point that one should use a reputable publisher. I'm arguing that publishers generally considered reputable aren't particularly different from those that are not (as the parent to that correctly notes, with fewer examples). What do you think isn't relevant?
    - Guvante 8y ago
      Because nothing you said disproves what the parent said, it simply gave an annecdote about what bad things a publisher did, unless you would categorize those as "ill-will of a single writer". Claiming systematic bias can also lead to that would have been fine in contrast, maybe even mentioning it has happened vaugely and bringing up your CNN example when challenged. The down votes are likely because your post could seemingly be summarized as "but Fake News" which has people on edge. Sure that isn't what you said but your phrasing makes that an easy mistake to make as a reader.
      - nailer 8y ago
        > Because nothing you said disproves what the parent said, it simply gave an annecdote about what bad things a publisher did, unless you would categorize those as "ill-will of a single writer". Well the general implication in the paresnt discussing fabrication as 'the ill of a single writer' and that a reputable publication should curtail them. You're right in that a 'reputable publication' may also simply deliberately craft lies as an organisation, rather than this happening as the result of the individual journalist. > The down votes are likely because your post could seemingly be summarized as "but Fake News" which has people on edge. Hence the edit restating that every single one of those is either well known or provable. Anyone can watch the unedited fish feeding video, read Damore's original memo, or see the CNN interview wherethe Obama admin talks about sepration happening. Something being a popular saying doesn't make it untrue. A more simple an likely explanation is that a US citizen's understanding of reality is now determined on a tribal basis rather than a factual one.
        Guvante 8y ago
        > Hence the edit restating that every single one of those is either well known or provable. But news organizations lie. All of them do and they do it on a routine basis. On the topic of your examples: 1. It appears that the article recognizes the normality in its last sentence, so this was corrected 2. I don't see anything in the Damore article (http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/technology/culture/james-damore-interview/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/technology/culture/james-dam...) that seemed to disagree with his memo unless I am missing a subtly. 3. This seems to be a failure to acknowledge and not a fabrication best I can tell (too difficult to find what disputes the original comment) These seems to be examples where CNN has corrected the stories quietly instead of issuing a retraction best I can tell which while I agree is annoying at least is ensuring the latest version of the article is as accurate as possible (including in "accuracy" intended tone here). How to best handle such corrections is hard.

True, there are 100 per cent people on vendettas hatchet jobs but more reputable publishers are better at curtailing the ill-will of a single writer.

by dp141 8y ago

True, there are 100 per cent people on vendettas hatchet jobs but more reputable publishers are better at curtailing the ill-will of a single writer.

nailer 8y ago

There are many people that believe CNN is a reputable publisher. Even after the Japan fish feeding hoax, fabrications about the contents of the Damore memo, and even denying their own "I'm sure in individual cases" interview with Obama administration re: child seperation this last 24 hours. Quick edit due to downmods: dear partisan Americans: I don't particularly care for either side of your politics. I'm not saying Fox is any better, and I think Donald Trump's a nasty and very hypocritical individual. But 1 and 3 are easily proven false on video, and 2 is clearly different from the content of the Damore memo, which you can read online. You're lying to yourself if you refuse to believe evidence about CNN fabricating any of these stories. As @Notradamus says before, giving a quote to a journalist allows them to shape the story. There is no reason to do that: you can self publish and still reach the masses in your own words, without risking someone else cutting video, lying about you, or denying something happened even when they filmed it themselves.

icebraining 8y ago
I'm not a partisan American (particularly not the latter), but I find your anti-CNN rant to be an irrelevant distraction in this topic.
- nailer 8y ago
  The parent makes the point that one should use a reputable publisher. I'm arguing that publishers generally considered reputable aren't particularly different from those that are not (as the parent to that correctly notes, with fewer examples). What do you think isn't relevant?
  - Guvante 8y ago
    Because nothing you said disproves what the parent said, it simply gave an annecdote about what bad things a publisher did, unless you would categorize those as "ill-will of a single writer". Claiming systematic bias can also lead to that would have been fine in contrast, maybe even mentioning it has happened vaugely and bringing up your CNN example when challenged. The down votes are likely because your post could seemingly be summarized as "but Fake News" which has people on edge. Sure that isn't what you said but your phrasing makes that an easy mistake to make as a reader.
    - nailer 8y ago
      > Because nothing you said disproves what the parent said, it simply gave an annecdote about what bad things a publisher did, unless you would categorize those as "ill-will of a single writer". Well the general implication in the paresnt discussing fabrication as 'the ill of a single writer' and that a reputable publication should curtail them. You're right in that a 'reputable publication' may also simply deliberately craft lies as an organisation, rather than this happening as the result of the individual journalist. > The down votes are likely because your post could seemingly be summarized as "but Fake News" which has people on edge. Hence the edit restating that every single one of those is either well known or provable. Anyone can watch the unedited fish feeding video, read Damore's original memo, or see the CNN interview wherethe Obama admin talks about sepration happening. Something being a popular saying doesn't make it untrue. A more simple an likely explanation is that a US citizen's understanding of reality is now determined on a tribal basis rather than a factual one.
      - Guvante 8y ago
        > Hence the edit restating that every single one of those is either well known or provable. But news organizations lie. All of them do and they do it on a routine basis. On the topic of your examples: 1. It appears that the article recognizes the normality in its last sentence, so this was corrected 2. I don't see anything in the Damore article (http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/technology/culture/james-damore-interview/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/technology/culture/james-dam...) that seemed to disagree with his memo unless I am missing a subtly. 3. This seems to be a failure to acknowledge and not a fabrication best I can tell (too difficult to find what disputes the original comment) These seems to be examples where CNN has corrected the stories quietly instead of issuing a retraction best I can tell which while I agree is annoying at least is ensuring the latest version of the article is as accurate as possible (including in "accuracy" intended tone here). How to best handle such corrections is hard.