4 ms·
In most cases if a reporter (and their entire news organization!) knew something to be true but kept saying the opposite for hours, that would be malpractice.
by morelisp 4y ago
In most cases if a reporter (and their entire news organization!) knew something to be true but kept saying the opposite for hours, that would be malpractice.
- concordDance 4y agoWhat do you mean by "malpractice"? Pretty sure there's no guild of journalists that would expel you.
- 0xRusty 4y agoNews can be embargoed, particularly in the case of events surrounding the royal family.
- morelisp 4y agoIn which case practice is appropriately to answer "no comment", not to say the opposite is true. Especially when it's obvious you're acting counter to what you're saying. The whole thing has a cult quality to it, and it's a farce in a way even ordinary propaganda isn't - beyond embarrassment and into cringe, perhaps.
- d1sxeyes 4y agoThat’s why the wording of the “correction” is important. She doesn’t say the queen isn’t dead, she says there has been no announcement. The protocol for news reporting around the death of the monarch is there for a reason: to make sure the news is authentic and to announce it to as many subjects as possible simultaneously. I don’t think it’s unusual for a news organisation to hold back from reporting something when there is a good reason. For example, troop movements, court cases, etc.