> With social media, the genie is out the bottle with that initial statement, and there's no way to set the record straight anymore, let alone in two weeks befo

> With social media, the genie is out the bottle with that initial statement, and there's no way to set the record straight anymore, let alone in two weeks before an election. Isn't it actually easier to correct the record with social media since you can correct it immediately and reach the people immediately? Whereas with newspapers, you'd have to wait days/weeks and have to search the tiny section they reserve for corrections? It's what made newspapers such great tools of propaganda. You push misinformation, spread it and then "retract" quietly relatively unseen. Edit: > If the idea that a particular professor or candidate is sexually exploitative becomes viral, can you really undo the damage? My point is that it's easier to "unring the bell" via social media than via newspapers. We are discussing the "previous status quo" : A newspaper writes a lie. How do you "unring the bell"? You have to wait until the next time you publish - which varies depending on whether you are a daily, weekly, monthly. Whereas in the social media era, you can just post on facebook, twitter, etc your retraction. The retraction is immediate and can be as visible as you want it to be.