Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted.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This discussion has been archived.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: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @03:38PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @03:38PM (#531956)

    If I wanted people to confirm my biases, I would go to another site. There are plenty of them these days. And, I do from time to time. I come here in part to find out what people that disagree have to say in each others presence. I do not appreciate people trying to make every public person and site conform to their own biases. But, then again, I prefer to self improvement over delusions of righteousness.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @03:48PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @03:48PM (#531963)

    That is idiotic. If I want to confirm by biases I'll go to particular sites, if I want to challenge them I will (and do) go to other ones. What I hate is that the whole internet is becoming an echo chamber for the same witless 'political' discussions that are essentially tribalism. I seriously doubt anyone has their opinions changed by anyone spouting the latest talking points and standard insults. Reasoned debate, in its correct place, would be great. What we have is deliberate attempts to subvert discussions and entire sites to try to normalize particular viewpoints. As I said at the start, there are plenty of places online to talk uninformed, opinionated crap about politics and society, but we are losing places where civil discussion can be had about other topics without the need to drag partisan politics into it. Go and look at some of the older (2000-2003ish) discussions on Slashdot and you'll see that the signal-to-noise ratio has completely flipped - pretty much everything is noise these days.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 27 2017, @04:21PM (4 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday June 27 2017, @04:21PM (#531992)

      What I hate is anonymous cowards whining about the membership breakdown of a community.

      --
      "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, @08:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @08:52PM (#532119)

        What I hate is anonymous cowards whining about the membership breakdown of a community.

        Yeah! I agree! What Tangofoxtrot said!!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @06:41AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @06:41AM (#532304)

        Paradoxically, I think anonymity is the purest definition of community. It is the complete removal of individual identity, with people left only to see a communal flow of discussion.

        And personally I think people having their views praised or condemned on the merit of their views alone, as opposed to whom is holding said views, is the way society can make progress. Especially today when people are so quick to label one another (and themselves). People so often decide what to think based not on what is being said, but who is saying it. Anonymity removes this bias.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:46PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:46PM (#532470)

          And personally I think people having their views praised or condemned on the merit of their views alone, as opposed to whom is holding said views, is the way society can make progress. Especially today when people are so quick to label one another (and themselves). People so often decide what to think based not on what is being said, but who is saying it. Anonymity removes this bias.

          A good point. But a lot of the AC comments are people just coming here to insult us/the site, not offer any valued dialog.

          But then again, I could point fingers at certain registered users around here whose only purpose in posting seems to be to insult other registered users...

          --
          "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 Wednesday June 28 2017, @03:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @03:44PM (#532491)

          Conversely, there are times when the messenger is the message.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @04:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @04:23PM (#531993)

      No THAT is stupid AND idiotic you nose in the air elitist asshole. If I want a political echo chamber I'll just go to one of the many sites that exist. The real problem is that we let inbred invertebrates on to the net and now we're suffering the co sequences. If I want to reinforce my own world view I'll just pop down to the local church and see ask about the whole climate change thing. Bad actors are subverting our way of life, idiots who only want to spew their ignorance argue shitty points and post shit from breitbart. How about a more respectable tabloid for once? Heil Randler!! Free markets and competition because I Am Very Smart!

    • (Score: 2) by KGIII on Tuesday June 27 2017, @06:33PM

      by KGIII (5261) on Tuesday June 27 2017, @06:33PM (#532059) Journal

      And, yet, here we are having this conversation.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."