4 ms·
A six year old, retracted article written by somebody described as "a former journalist". What else ya got?
by Ensorceled 7y ago
A six year old, retracted article written by somebody described as "a former journalist".
What else ya got?
- dexterdog 7y agoAre all of the editors who approved the article listed as "former editors?" Answer: No. Sean Woods, who was the editor directly responsible for the articles, is still a writer for RS.
- Ensorceled 7y agoSeriously, are there other instances/events or just this one? All news sources have their failures, some are consistently bad, is Rolling Stone in the consistently bad category?
- dntbnmpls 7y ago> What else ya got? That's not enough? People like you are why we have a "news" industry.
- Ensorceled 7y agoIt was six years ago. It was retracted. The person responsible was fired and blacklisted from the industry. What did people like you want to happen? Because EVERY news source has at least one skeleton like this in their closet.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago> It was six years ago. It was retracted. The person responsible was fired and blacklisted from the industry. Shouldn't the company itself be "fired and blacklisted"? > What did people like you want to happen? See above. > Because EVERY news source has at least one skeleton like this in their closet. It's not their "closet". They did it INTENTIONALLY to push an agenda. Meaning it's a problem with the institution itself. They intentionally set out to create "news" where it didn't exist to further their agenda. They retracted once they got caught. I wonder if you would be so dismissive of the "sins" of other "news" institutions that don't align with your bias or agenda.