2 ms·

I see how you took that from my comment, I do not want to imply that all news outlets are the same level of bad. That would be an impossible position to defend

by Spivak 2y ago

I see how you took that from my comment, I do not want to imply that all news outlets are the same level of bad. That would be an impossible position to defend even if I believed it, the Daily Mail exists. It's that even the cream of the crop isn't helping you be meaningfully informed and this article is a perfect case-study of it. Having read neither of these articles, the original or the retraction, would be the ideal state.

squigz 2y ago
> Having read neither of these articles, the original or the retraction, would be the ideal state. I disagree. The ideal state would be news organization would be held accountable for the nonsense they get up to. The original article was an interesting insight into the benefits of the Internet and how it can be beneficial to tribes like that. This latest article (not really a retraction) is also beneficial in that it calls out the nonsense other news outlets got up to, and points a light at the issue itself, as you yourself are doing.