3 ms·
The damage is done though, so I don't know that I see this as a thing to be happy about. I am curious if the source is known or unmasked at a later date what do
by kodah 6y ago
The damage is done though, so I don't know that I see this as a thing to be happy about. I am curious if the source is known or unmasked at a later date what does accountability look like?
If WaPo is the only one who can be held accountable and their only accountability is issuing a retraction, that seems like a gameable system.
- didibus 6y agoWhat's the alternative? Stop reporting news altogether? I feel as a news org, the best you can do is just report the data as it becomes available. Obviously later data could contradict prior data or clarify its interpretation. What matters though is the accuracy of the data reported, not in the data being a perfect predictor of the outcome, but that this is accurately the current known data, even if it later comes to be shown incomplete or misleading.
- mhuffman 6y ago>What's the alternative? Stop reporting news altogether? Maybe don't report something that one person told you and that you can't otherwise confirm? That used to be the way that news was done, right?
- shadowfox 6y ago> That used to be the way that news was done, right? That seems like a bit of a rose colored view of news in the past.
- shard972 6y agoout the lying source
- jfrunyon 6y agoI'm curious what damage you think was done here?
- kodah 6y agoThe damage on discourse primarily. If people are going to be able to have discussions then littering them falsities or non-truths from major media outlets would add needless friction to already difficult conversations. There's probably some amount of distrust each of these organizations gain when they affect a given group with misinformation that is close to them.