4 ms·

I added an edit. Footage was immediately available showing he was being accosted and advanced upon by the other people, and the idea that they had blocked and t

I added an edit. Footage was immediately available showing he was being accosted and advanced upon by the other people, and the idea that they had blocked and trapped the demonstrators was a complete fabrication.

lalaland1125 5y ago
A reporter making mistakes and not reviewing every piece of theoretically available footage is not the same as a reporter intentionally doctoring footage. One is incompetence, the other is malice. Do you not understand the difference between the two?
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  It wasn't a mistake, they used photos and footage in their reporting of it. It was lies. Malicious lies. Even if you want to use the weak excuse that they didn't know what they were doing, the fact it was not corrected or retracted after they did view this "hypothetical footage" (which apparently everyone else on the internet was able to find immediately), proves the malicious and intentional nature of it.
  - lalaland1125 5y ago
    > It wasn't a mistake, they used photos and footage in their reporting of it. They covered the most popular footage at the time, which was not the footage that exonerated Sandmann. > Even if you want to use the weak excuse that they didn't know what they were doing, the fact it was not corrected or retracted after they did view this "hypothetical footage" (which apparently everyone else on the internet was able to find immediately), proves the malicious and intentional nature of it. They published their correction to the original article on January 22nd (3 days after their first article, 4 days after the incident in question). Pretty quick fix if you ask me for this sort of stuff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-of-the-conflict-on-the-mall-comes-into-clearer-focus/2019/01/20/c078f092-1ceb-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-o...
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      > They covered the most popular footage at the time, which was not the footage that exonerated Sandmann. Of course it was. There was not one video or angle that showed the protestors were trying to escape and being blocked > They published their correction to the original article on January 22nd (3 days after their first article, 4 days after the incident in question). Pretty quick fix if you ask me for this sort of stuff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-o https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-o... 3 days! 3 days of ruining a kid's life, riling up a hateful mob of violent angry lunatics calling for him to be killed, calling him racist and white supremacist. Meanwhile all the footage was out! It was malicious lies. I don't know how you can excuse such disgusting lies.

lalaland1125 5y ago

A reporter making mistakes and not reviewing every piece of theoretically available footage is not the same as a reporter intentionally doctoring footage. One is incompetence, the other is malice. Do you not understand the difference between the two?

throwawaylinux 5y ago
It wasn't a mistake, they used photos and footage in their reporting of it. It was lies. Malicious lies. Even if you want to use the weak excuse that they didn't know what they were doing, the fact it was not corrected or retracted after they did view this "hypothetical footage" (which apparently everyone else on the internet was able to find immediately), proves the malicious and intentional nature of it.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  > It wasn't a mistake, they used photos and footage in their reporting of it. They covered the most popular footage at the time, which was not the footage that exonerated Sandmann. > Even if you want to use the weak excuse that they didn't know what they were doing, the fact it was not corrected or retracted after they did view this "hypothetical footage" (which apparently everyone else on the internet was able to find immediately), proves the malicious and intentional nature of it. They published their correction to the original article on January 22nd (3 days after their first article, 4 days after the incident in question). Pretty quick fix if you ask me for this sort of stuff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-of-the-conflict-on-the-mall-comes-into-clearer-focus/2019/01/20/c078f092-1ceb-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-o...
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > They covered the most popular footage at the time, which was not the footage that exonerated Sandmann. Of course it was. There was not one video or angle that showed the protestors were trying to escape and being blocked > They published their correction to the original article on January 22nd (3 days after their first article, 4 days after the incident in question). Pretty quick fix if you ask me for this sort of stuff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-o https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-o... 3 days! 3 days of ruining a kid's life, riling up a hateful mob of violent angry lunatics calling for him to be killed, calling him racist and white supremacist. Meanwhile all the footage was out! It was malicious lies. I don't know how you can excuse such disgusting lies.