SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From Breitbart:
Another day, another very fake news story from the network President Donald Trump has identified as "very fake news."
CNN's Thomas Frank on Thursday evening published what would have been considered an explosive report if remotely true: One anonymous source told him both the Treasury Department and Senate Intelligence Committee are probing a Russian investment fund with ties to several senior finance world leaders close to President Trump. Only problem? Both Trump administration officials and those close to Senate GOP leadership say it's simply untrue.
The retraction from CNN:
On June 22, 2017, CNN.com published a story connecting Anthony Scaramucci with investigations into the Russian Direct Investment Fund.
That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted. Links to the story have been disabled. CNN apologizes to Mr. Scaramucci.
According to BuzzFeed News, CNN has responded by actually requiring executives to review stories:
CNN is imposing strict new publishing restrictions for online articles involving Russia after the network deleted a story and then issued a retraction late Friday, according to an internal email obtained by BuzzFeed News.
The email went out at 11:21 a.m. on Saturday from Rich Barbieri, the CNNMoney executive editor, saying "No one should publish any content involving Russia without coming to me and Jason," a CNN vice president.
At least now we'll know who to blame.
[Ed Note: I debated leaving this in politics or dropping it to the main page. I opted for the latter because politics or not, the prevalence of "fake news" is one that we deal with on a daily basis from our respective social media feeds to all the major broadcast and cable news networks. How are we to tell what is "fake" and what is actually (relatively) "true"? The main stream media all put their spin on everything. A right slant for some, a left slant for others. Is the truth somewhere in between, or is it a story that we aren't getting becasue the mainstream media is so intent on telling their narrative that we the people are getting the shit end of the stick regardless of where we get the so called news?]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 27 2017, @03:04PM (16 children)
I mean really, guys--you know this whole "fake news" hullabaloo is a thing, right? Maybe try to get a second source if the first is anonymous :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sulla on Tuesday June 27 2017, @03:33PM (1 child)
What do you do when he is anonymous too?
I think the problem is not the anonymous sources, it is the lack of vetting them. Story after story lacks proper sourcing and then ends up being false, the response is to double down and try to find a way to make it true rather than actually find real news.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 27 2017, @04:13PM
Sure. We've been hearing about circular reference news that cites Wikipedia without any real sources for years.
I bet some of the time the author suspects it might not be real, but they roll the dice on it to get in before somebody else breaks the story.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @03:36PM (2 children)
Ha!
I have fifteen anonymous sources that can confirm that my internet penis is bigger than your's.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Tuesday June 27 2017, @05:30PM
you have convinced me...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @08:19AM
So, You're the one whose been yelping everytime I snap my laptop shut!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 27 2017, @04:28PM
Can't be first to break the story if you wait for verification.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @05:59PM (5 children)
The sources are generally not anonymous to the reporter. We rely on the integrity of the journalists and the organization they work for to vet the sources and write a factual, informative story.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @08:10PM
Which won't work if the journalists have no integrity and thus no confidence among the readers. There may be some latency but it's usually a one way function once found out.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday June 28 2017, @12:05AM (3 children)
Exactly right. And it doesn't work. Back when Woodward and Bernstein were getting the dope from Mark Felt / Deep Throat they couldn't just run with it. The editors wouldn't hear of it because that just isn't how journalism works and they were afraid too many of their subscribers knew it. What they COULD and DID do was allow Felt to explain the inside details and give them clues like "follow the money" which would lead them to actual news. Actual news defined as documents and on the record statements from actual named people. And in the end it was enough, they got their great white whale. History can judge whether it was a good thing. In these post journalism days they just take the anonymous source and run with it, pledging the 'full faith and credibility' of the news organization behind the validity of the claims. And too many times the stories backed only with anonymous sources fall apart. So they quickly spent that faith and credibility and can't figure out why the game isn't working anymore. Remember, the MSM was the morons who started the #FakeNews thing, too blind to see how easy it would be to reverse that charge back on them. Too arrogant to see the obvious, that their popularity ratings was only slightly better (in some polls) than Congress but worse than Bill Cosby, based almost entirely on a perception they were untrustworthy weasels with an agenda. And we haven't even seen polls updated to reflect six months of "Russia! Russia! Russia!" hysteria.
The model is defective. If you are making claims based on nothing more than "trust me, I'm a journalist; I know who the leaker is and I trust them" it is a good thing that people quickly stop believing. At least get some leaked documents. Something! Now that this model is pining for the fjords we can hopefully get back to actual journalism, reporting based on documentable facts and not the personal popularity of the reporter. With the Internet, that means we won't need to restrict 'journalism' to a small cabal prone to groupthink and entryism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @01:43AM
http://projectveritas.com/video/american-pravda-cnn-producer-says-russia-narrative-bullsht/ [projectveritas.com]
'nuff said
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @09:18AM (1 child)
Can I get a camera feed from inside of jmorris gastro-intestinal tract? What with the shit he spins outside, there must be veritable kalidoscopes of stuff up there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @06:36AM
You missed it, AC! teh ProjectVeritas _is_ the feed you are looking for! Fake News, Fake Video, Fake costumes, Fake republicans! Convicted, even! It's that little weasel, oh, what's his name? He so, so wanted to be famous. Now he is just a felon, stuck up jmorris's nether regions. Sad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @07:53PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @08:41PM
https://theintercept.com/2015/04/16/welcome-unofficial-sources/ [theintercept.com]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 27 2017, @08:47PM
Fine, then shift the responsibility to the editor. It's at least partially his job to look at the article from the outside perspective of the reader to avoid making the media corp look like idiots. "So we talked to a single dude who we won't tell you who it is, but take our word on it. Hobo Bob^W^WOur source is very trusted."
But the MSM probably takes it for granted everyone trusts them.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @08:29PM
An "anonymous source" is one that will not be publicly identified (for example, because the source could get in trouble for it, or because the journalist has promised secrecy in the hopes of getting more stories in the future). It does not necessarily mean that the journalist doesn't know the identity of the source.
That said, it is definitely safer for the source if the journalist doesn't know his/her identity either, because of all the laws made against journalism under the guise of "national security".