Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday June 27 2017, @02:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the who-watches-the-retractions dept.

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That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted.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?]

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @03:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @03:18PM (#531939)

    When something significant happens that's international news you can get a good idea of what actually happened by comparing a bunch of news sites.

    For things that are interesting and I want to know what happened I check my local West European news, RT, Al Jazeera, and try Asian or South-America/African sources.
    I also adopted the habit of checking RT once in a while to get news that just didn't appear in my local area. (e.g. the US downing a Syrian fighter jet recently)

    In the beginning I thought Western news was pretty good and had little bias. But after a while I found out that's just not true. While RT spins more, they also usually run the story that isn't nice to Russia (although properly spinned) while the Western media, they simply don't run any story that they don't like. And for the vast majority that works a lot better, because their are not many people in the West that would consider looking for news elsewhere.

    The biggest issue though, I distrust the media more and more, and I start noticing all the little omissions or suggestions.
    The best examples are when a group in their home region wants to break free from their government. They'll be called freedom-fighters, rebels, separatists or terrorists not depending on their methods or legitimacy but solely on their pro Western stance.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4