Washington Post retracts story about Russian hack at Vermont utility

tsuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

And why do they do that? Because fake news fish wrappers like WaPo know that once a story is broke it's harder to 'un-break' it: it becomes entrenched since so many people get their news from scanning the headlines and social media.

I doubt the law would ever pass 1st Amendment muster, but it would put a stop to a lot of this crap.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
And why do they do that? Because fake news fish wrappers like WaPo know that once a story is broke it's harder to 'un-break' it: it becomes entrenched since so many people get their news from scanning the headlines and social media.

I doubt the law would ever pass 1st Amendment muster, but it would put a stop to a lot of this crap.
Click to expand...

I think it would. It doenst prevent them from printing whatever the hell they want just devote the same space in case yo uscrew up.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
And why do they do that? Because fake news fish wrappers like WaPo know that once a story is broke it's harder to 'un-break' it: it becomes entrenched since so many people get their news from scanning the headlines and social media.

I doubt the law would ever pass 1st Amendment muster, but it would put a stop to a lot of this crap.
Click to expand...
much like fake news itself -yes
 
"A) denial of responsibility is NOT the same as disavowing a previous statement." Bd
YOU are telling ME?!
I'm the one (#15) that posted the DEFINITIONS!

In either case; it's the agency's public acknowledgement that validity has not been confirmed: it's a "report", not a "confirmation".

"Thanks for playing."

Right back atcha cupcake.

"B) A professional journalist does NOT SELL OUT even if YOU say it's ok to do." Bd

If that ever happens I'll be sure to let you know.

"even if YOU say it's ok to do." Bd

Just what is it you're smoking in that blunt there dB?

I NEVER said it was OK to do. An explanation is not necessarily approval. Why is it I have to explain 7th grade English grammar to you?

"His.Her integrity is not for sale. Thats what makes them professional journalists."

They're not selling their integrity. Their selling their journalism. THAT'S WHAT MAKES THEM PROFESSIONALS!!
 
Bigdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just call the lying dog what it is.....a lying YELLOW JOURNALIST dog. THE TRUTH should always be paramount in any circumstance when it is printed by someone calling themselves journalists from the 4th estate. When the truth is not forthcoming we are 'left' with one thing...propaganda. The left uses the media as did the Nazi's in the 30s when they were rising to power. They use the media to manufacture news....not report it. :readit:
 
Libs are still ok with Gung Dan Rather faking documents from the 60s on a word processor and laser printer.
And the NYT making up stories.
They adore fake news.
 
Bigdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
And why do they do that? Because fake news fish wrappers like WaPo know that once a story is broke it's harder to 'un-break' it: it becomes entrenched since so many people get their news from scanning the headlines and social media.

I doubt the law would ever pass 1st Amendment muster, but it would put a stop to a lot of this crap.
Click to expand...
You must be horrified on a daily basis by Fox News, Breitbert and Infowars!
 
sear said:
"A) denial of responsibility is NOT the same as disavowing a previous statement." Bd
YOU are telling ME?!
I'm the one (#15) that posted the DEFINITIONS!

In either case; it's the agency's public acknowledgement that validity has not been confirmed: it's a "report", not a "confirmation".

"Thanks for playing."

Right back atcha cupcake.

"B) A professional journalist does NOT SELL OUT even if YOU say it's ok to do." Bd

If that ever happens I'll be sure to let you know.

"even if YOU say it's ok to do." Bd

Just what is it you're smoking in that blunt there dB?

I NEVER said it was OK to do. An explanation is not necessarily approval. Why is it I have to explain 7th grade English grammar to you?

"His.Her integrity is not for sale. Thats what makes them professional journalists."

They're not selling their integrity. Their selling their journalism. THAT'S WHAT MAKES THEM PROFESSIONALS!!
Click to expand...

Your own words Sear ...

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

So you posted the definitions to prove yourself wrong? That was unnecessary, everyone knows you're wrong.

You suggested that "journalists" have to print their stories before confirming them ... for (financial ) survival reasons, not me. Some great standards you have there ... NOT.
 
"Your own words Sear ...

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

So you posted the definitions to prove yourself wrong? That was unnecessary, everyone knows you're wrong.

You suggested that "journalists" have to print their stories before confirming them ... for (financial ) survival reasons, not me. Some great standards you have there ... NOT." #35

I apologize Bd.

I thought you were smarter than this.

I NEVER said the two different words are absolute synonyms in all respects.

Instead I made a subtler point which obviously doesn't comport with your degree of obtuseness.

In any case they alert to the unverified nature of the published report; the issue about which you squeal like a stuck pig.
 
sear said:
"Your own words Sear ...

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

So you posted the definitions to prove yourself wrong? That was unnecessary, everyone knows you're wrong.

You suggested that "journalists" have to print their stories before confirming them ... for (financial ) survival reasons, not me. Some great standards you have there ... NOT." #35

I apologize Bd.

I thought you were smarter than this.

I NEVER said the two different words are absolute synonyms in all respects.

Instead I made a subtler point which obviously doesn't comport with your degree of obtuseness.

In any case they alert to the unverified nature of the published report; the issue about which you squeal like a stuck pig.
Click to expand...

Wrong, in this case the retraction is a verification that the report was false.
 
Sear

If they had provided a "disclaimer" that the story was unverified in the original report, a "retraction" would have been unnecessary.
 
#37

And in the other case it's an acknowledgement that it might be.

BOTH address the reliability of the report. You're fussing over chronology.
 
sear said:
#37

And in the other case it's an acknowledgement that it might be.

BOTH address the reliability of the report. You're fussing over chronology.
Click to expand...

Wrong ... go back and read the definitions YOU posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top