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That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted.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: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 27 2017, @08:05PM
This is off-base. I submit a lot of articles to SN (2556, according to the Hall of Fame [soylentnews.org]). 95% of them are tech/science related. The other 5% are 'techonomics'/social science.
Some of them are substantive and excite nerdy discussion, but those don't come along often. Most articles cover incremental changes or findings or improvements. Many of them are composed by university/laboratory/institute press departments who nearly always try to sex things up. It's the way the world is.
Some of them are silly, and are submitted because they're silly and we can all have a nerdy chuckle.
If you're not happy with the selection and volume of tech/sci articles on the site, then submit some and/or suggest more sources beyond the usual like phys.org or arstechnica. If you don't like articles about politics, then switch them off in your account preferences. You can do that here.
What is not appreciated in a community-driven site like this, which has given you these options to improve your and our experience, is to complain and stamp your feet that the rest of us volunteers are not doing a good enough job to meet your high standards.
Washington DC delenda est.