Washington Post retracts story about Russian hack at Vermont utility

[BRUTALITOPS]

http://nypost.com/2017/01/01/washington-post-retracts-story-about-russian-hack-at-vermont-utility/

The Washington Post has retracted its story about Russian hackers penetrating the nation’s electricity grid with a virus found in a Burlington, Vt., electric company laptop.

“Authorities say there is no indication of that so far [that Russians had penetrated the US electric grid],” according to an editor’s note attached to a corrected version of the story on the paper’s Web site.

“The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid,” the editor’s note read.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

sounds like WaPost was churning out a bit of FAKE NEWS

 

[Ass Man]

It was for liberal minds only, they are softer

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

CNN also made this fake news story. Liberal news likes fake news.

 

[sear]

The newspaper business has reportedly operated on national average at about a 20% profit margin.
But the 20th century business model is crumbling.
Reporter / investigator staff has been slashed, other cost-cutting measures implemented to keep print media viable despite encroachment from:
- cable TV including dedicated cable news
- the 24 hr. news cycle
- parasitic bloggers
- and other competition

These and other pressures have forced editorial staff to decide more hastily whether or not to release a story in hope of getting a scoop, even if the story isn't fully confirmed; rather then getting scooped by the competition by delay.
For newspapermen, it's not sloth; it's survival. They're pros. They know how to check a story. But they've got a broader suite of concerns.

 

[sear]

When investigating a crime suspect, one of the elements detectives look for is motive.

" Liberal news likes fake news. " Y #4

Almost certainly not.
The stock in trade for liberal and conservative journalists alike is integrity. And it only takes ONE false story in a 40 year career to do irreparable harm to the reporter, and the news agency.

" Liberal news likes fake news. " Y #4

piffle

 

[PostmodernProphet]

and Chrispy said I was evil because I didn't care.......gosh this makes her look stupid, doesn't it.......

 

[Cancel 2018.2]

Liberals and their fake news.

 

[sear]

Liberals and their fake news.

What a luxury it is to spew 100% unsubstantiated accusations; and pretend they're true.

- Not a quotation.

- Not a logical argument.

- Not a refutation.

Only:

Liberals and their fake news.

Who do they think they're kidding?

They think libel is a persuasive logical argument ?!

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Trump has the scoop.

We'll find out "Tuesday or Wednesday." I'm on the edge of my seat.

 

[Nomad]

Maybe he'll reveal his super secret plan to destroy ISIS too.

Maybe have a meeting with the generals and teach them all he knows about them.

Maybe cap the day off by announcing that he's got the contracts lined up to begin construction of the wall.

 

[Bigdog]

The newspaper business has reportedly operated on national average at about a 20% profit margin.
But the 20th century business model is crumbling.
Reporter / investigator staff has been slashed, other cost-cutting measures implemented to keep print media viable despite encroachment from:
- cable TV including dedicated cable news
- the 24 hr. news cycle
- parasitic bloggers
- and other competition

These and other pressures have forced editorial staff to decide more hastily whether or not to release a story in hope of getting a scoop, even if the story isn't fully confirmed; rather then getting scooped by the competition by delay.
For newspapermen, it's not sloth; it's survival. They're pros. They know how to check a story. But they've got a broader suite of concerns.

Excuses are like assholes.

If your premise it true (I suspect it's just conjecture), then newspapers/journalists need to put a caveat, ... a disclaimer ... or at least an asterisk ... that the "news" is "unconfirmed".

But!

what we find so often, is that once the lie is out, it is too late to stop pajama boys from believing it, no matter how many retractions are printed.

AND!

It becomes propaganda, not journalism.

 

[sear]

"newspapers/journalists need to put a caveat, ... a disclaimer ... or at least an asterisk" Bd

Washington Post retracts story about Russian hack at Vermont utility

a) Correct.
A retraction is a disclaimer, which according to the thread title, they've already published.

b) If you are a professional journalist, we can set your opinion on par with other professional journalists.
If you are not, then in matters of professional journalism, the professional journalists would seem to have the upper hand.

c) Could it have been handled better?
Probably!
Is the way it happened instead proof of some wild left wing media conspiracy to take over the world, or have you soil your panties?

What do you think?

 

[Bigdog]

"newspapers/journalists need to put a caveat, ... a disclaimer ... or at least an asterisk" Bd

Washington Post retracts story about Russian hack at Vermont utility

a) Correct.
A retraction is a disclaimer, which according to the thread title, they've already published.

b) If you are a professional journalist, we can set your opinion on par with other professional journalists.
If you are not, then in matters of professional journalism, the professional journalists would seem to have the upper hand.

c) Could it have been handled better?
Probably!
Is the way it happened instead proof of some wild left wing media conspiracy to take over the world, or have you soil your panties?

What do you think?

A) False. A retraction is not the same as a disclaimer.

B) It's the journalist responsibility to investigate and confirm before printing.

C) Definitely, not probably.

 

[sear]

Bd #14
retraction (rî-tràk´shen) noun
1. The act of retracting or the state of being retracted.
2. a. The act of recanting or disavowing a previously held statement or belief. b. A formal statement of disavowal. c. Something recanted or disavowed.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

disclaimer (dîs-klâ´mer) noun
1. A repudiation or denial of responsibility or connection.
2. Law. A renunciation of one's right or claim.

[Middle English, denial of a feudal claim, from Anglo-Norman desclaimer, to disclaim, denial of a feudal claim. See disclaim.] *

So your issue is not the words, but the timing?
If it's printed in the same edition it meets your royal highness' approval.
But if it's printed in a subsequent edition World War 47 breaks out? SOBER UP!

Bd #14 adds:
"B) It's the journalist responsibility to investigate and confirm before printing."

I've already addressed that.

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

 

[tsuke]

retractions annoy me because they never get the press that the original story gets. Note that wapo is the one that broke the russian hacking thing and they have to retract a different story whereas Assange and wikileaks who have said its a leak not a hack still have their clean no retraction record.

There should be a law requiring retractions to be given the same amount of space as the original article. If your original article was front page above the fold the retraction should be in the exact same space. If it was broken in news story it should be in the same timeslot for the exact same length of time.

 

[Bigdog]

Sear,

A) denial of responsibility is NOT the same as disavowing a previous statement.

Thanks for playing.

B) A professional journalist does NOT SELL OUT even if YOU say it's ok to do. His.Her integrity is not for sale. Thats what makes them professional journalists.

 

[tsuke]

Sear,

A) denial of responsibility is NOT the same as disavowing a previous statement.

Thanks for playing.

B) A professional journalist does NOT SELL OUT even if YOU say it's ok to do. His.Her integrity is not for sale. Thats what makes them professional journalists.

been proven this election that some of our "professional journalists" run their stories by the dnc before printing.

 

[Bigdog]

retractions annoy me because they never get the press that the original story gets. Note that wapo is the one that broke the russian hacking thing and they have to retract a different story whereas Assange and wikileaks who have said its a leak not a hack still have their clean no retraction record.

There should be a law requiring retractions to be given the same amount of space as the original article. If your original article was front page above the fold the retraction should be in the exact same space. If it was broken in news story it should be in the same timeslot for the exact same length of time.

This is why the leftwing big gov't socialists hate that Trump responds to every attack almost instantly. He nips it in the bud, and gets the truth out there, before too many succumb to the propaganda lies of the racist hard Left.

Trump knows how to use twitter better than the pajama boys! He whups them at their own game, lol.

 

[tsuke]

This is why the leftwing big gov't socialists hate that Trump responds to every attack almost instantly. He nips it in the bud, and gets the truth out there, before too many succumb to the propaganda lies of the racist hard Left.

yup. The "retractions" have to be part of the main story.