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That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted.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 NotSanguine on Tuesday June 27 2017, @09:29PM (3 children)
No. That's not fake news. That's shoddy journalism. There';s a difference.
Fake news is *deliberately false* information seeded into the information sphere to pollute public discourse. PizzaGate [wikipedia.org] was fake news, the CNN story was just crappy journalism, where those involved didn't follow their own standards. See the difference?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday June 27 2017, @10:09PM (2 children)
You can't do that, I can't do that, no one can do that.
Mine does not. When you have an organization that systematically and predictably produces 'shoddy journalism' that supports a particular political line, and only remembers those standards when it comes to stories that do not support that line, I'm going to call that a fake news organization, and I don't really care about the unknowable mental states of those involved. Whether they are doing this as a conscious tactic or as a result of self-inflicted brain damage doesn't matter much. That self-inflicted brain damage would still represent a conscious choice that ultimately led to reporting falsehoods, it's just one level removed compared to concious-in-the-moment lying anyway.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday June 27 2017, @10:35PM
Whatever.
I'm sticking with this:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=20269&page=1&cid=532147#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
What you believe is up to you. Good luck with that.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @09:44AM
You don't need to see in someone's heart to find out his intentions. If that were necessary, courts would be in deep trouble.
But yes, it means that sometimes you do not know whether a specific story was fake news or just bad journalism. But that's not a problem with definitions, that's just a fact of life. But if you are accuse someone or some organization of fake news without clear evidence of intent, you are not the slightest bit better than those bad journalists (and by your own standards, you would have to consider yourself generating fake news).