3 ms·

>assume you threw the "quietly" in there to be safe in case someone asks for examples Why is any comment remotely construable as defending of the current admin

>assume you threw the "quietly" in there to be safe in case someone asks for examples Why is any comment remotely construable as defending of the current administration automatically presumed to be made in bad faith? The typical internet response to anything related to Trump is completely irrational at this point. I used the term quietly to emphasize that the damage was done and outlets aren't exactly bending over backwards to broadcast their mistakes on their front pages. I post on mobile so no, it's not trivial to find examples. But you can dig around for the German reported seizure, for example, which turned out to be totally legitimate. Headlines talk about piracy when deep in the article you see that other nations are being outbid legitimately. Even if these dealings aren't intentional, there is still a problem when outlets suspend goof journalist practices, like vetting, in order to be the first to publish any information critical of the president. Edit: ironically, it's hard to find anything supportive of my point because even searching with quotes and plus signs, Google and DDG both refuse to return results that actually contain the words I'm searching for (correction, retraction).

justin66 6y ago
Was a story from a credible source (if you prefer, any source) on the German seizure ever retracted? The story that was shared here on the German seizure did not contain enough information that a retraction would be necessary.
- twomoretime 6y ago
  The only German stories I can find currently are misleading in a different way. The headlines use words like "piracy" and "seize" when the text indicates legitimate market bidding. In these cases my point is the same - this may not be wrong enough for a retraction but the misleading negative influence is still accomplished.
  - justin66 6y ago
    At some point we have to trust readers to understand that a headline is just a headline, and it's the most prone part of a news story to editorializing. (since it's the part that's written by an editor) A bad headline is not necessarily indicative of the quality of the story - although you can probably tell that you've picked up a tabloid or something if they're all bad. > In these cases my point is the same - this may not be wrong enough for a retraction but the misleading negative influence is still accomplished. In this case, headlines involving piracy are a poor example of the point you're trying to make. The word "piracy" originated from a quote from a German minister, so it's not an example of editorializing gone mad.
KarlKemp 6y ago
> Why is any comment remotely construable as defending of the current administration automatically presumed to be made in bad faith? First, because reputable media sources don't do "quiet retractions". The New York Times has a section for corrections: https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections If you catch them just deleting a full article, you'll be a hero for the alt-right. They've been complaining about the Iraq war coverage for the last 18 years, and at some point even they start finding it a little odd that there are no more recent example of major errors for something supposedly evil incarnate. More or less the same applies to other reputable sources. I believe part of the misunderstanding here is that your accusation, if true, would be far more serious than you believe it to be. Extraordinary claims require evidence of the same magnitude. But because you consider journalists to be routinely lying, you don't see the need for any evidence. I consider it reasonable to expect people mentioning such a scandal, which they would have read about in the last week or so, to remember one or two details from the story, such as the outlet it supposedly ran in, or the place where it happened. With the name or a state or hospital, plus maybe the publisher, it should be easy to find someone on twitter or reddit mentioning it, or other outlets picking up on the story (and its eventual fate). Instead, this thread is now four-deep with meta discussion, but nobody has found a link which would easily settle the matter. I stand by my scepticism.

justin66 6y ago

Was a story from a credible source (if you prefer, any source) on the German seizure ever retracted? The story that was shared here on the German seizure did not contain enough information that a retraction would be necessary.

twomoretime 6y ago
The only German stories I can find currently are misleading in a different way. The headlines use words like "piracy" and "seize" when the text indicates legitimate market bidding. In these cases my point is the same - this may not be wrong enough for a retraction but the misleading negative influence is still accomplished.
- justin66 6y ago
  At some point we have to trust readers to understand that a headline is just a headline, and it's the most prone part of a news story to editorializing. (since it's the part that's written by an editor) A bad headline is not necessarily indicative of the quality of the story - although you can probably tell that you've picked up a tabloid or something if they're all bad. > In these cases my point is the same - this may not be wrong enough for a retraction but the misleading negative influence is still accomplished. In this case, headlines involving piracy are a poor example of the point you're trying to make. The word "piracy" originated from a quote from a German minister, so it's not an example of editorializing gone mad.

KarlKemp 6y ago

> Why is any comment remotely construable as defending of the current administration automatically presumed to be made in bad faith? First, because reputable media sources don't do "quiet retractions". The New York Times has a section for corrections: https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections If you catch them just deleting a full article, you'll be a hero for the alt-right. They've been complaining about the Iraq war coverage for the last 18 years, and at some point even they start finding it a little odd that there are no more recent example of major errors for something supposedly evil incarnate. More or less the same applies to other reputable sources. I believe part of the misunderstanding here is that your accusation, if true, would be far more serious than you believe it to be. Extraordinary claims require evidence of the same magnitude. But because you consider journalists to be routinely lying, you don't see the need for any evidence. I consider it reasonable to expect people mentioning such a scandal, which they would have read about in the last week or so, to remember one or two details from the story, such as the outlet it supposedly ran in, or the place where it happened. With the name or a state or hospital, plus maybe the publisher, it should be easy to find someone on twitter or reddit mentioning it, or other outlets picking up on the story (and its eventual fate). Instead, this thread is now four-deep with meta discussion, but nobody has found a link which would easily settle the matter. I stand by my scepticism.