Why do you disagree with the evidence presented by the intercept? It seems to me that there was an intent to misinform the public, either by multiple sources deliberately feeding the wrong information to multiple news agencies or the news agencies misrepresented how many independent sources had verified the information.
I wonder what precisely happened to Glenn Greenwald. He used to be a valuable left-wing journalist, back when he was at Salon. Now he's a complete shill for Trump and Wikileaks. I suppose my leading theory is, Russia bought him.
Greenwald is right, of course, that CNN screwed up on this story, but to call it the "most humiliating debacle in ages"? That's just goofy. What's humiliating is that we have a budding Hitler in our midst and we are apparently powerless to stop it.
Maybe he just changed his opinion? This Russia hysteria is not helping anyone. Whether or not Russia hacked the election I don't know. But blaming everything on the Russians doesn't help anyone and will only make you look silly.
> But blaming everything on the Russians doesn't help anyone and will only make you look silly.
Yeah, I guess responding to an attack on our democracy by investigating the extent of the damage is pretty silly, isn't it. We should just sit around and go "oh man those wacky Russian, always up in our business... well, whacha gonna do about it? Nothing, of course, we wouldn't want to be silly." That would be the sensible course of action, clearly.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
Citation? Please point to a factually incorrect sorry - not opinion piece you disagree with - corroborating your claim. Greenwald posts concrete examples of stories that had to be retracted in the past week alone. Please present a single example of a story retracted by either of those two outlets.
> Please present a single example of a story retracted by either of those two outlets.
Like when doing science, retracting bad information is a good sign; refusing to do so doesn't make you a better news source, it just makes you one that tries to hide your mistakes.
That's why they call them fake news. They really need to tone down the emotions and improve their fact checking and concentrate the news on facts, otherwise the people will just classify them as biased, lying, conspiracy media instead of a legible news source.
Otherwise Trump is by default winning the "battle".
Trump is just exploiting a weakness media companies created themselves with sloppy work and a reliance on cheap talking heads shows. They made it easy for him.
Outrageous. In my opinion, the extreme partisan bias shown by CNN, NBC, and others is a great reason to have voted for Trump. (BTW, I voted for Gary Johnson.)
Democracy has no chance to survive when the news media is 'owned' by one political party.
Trump has just demanded (and got) an apology from a Washington Post reporter that posted a misleading photo suggesting a Trump rally was half-empty. (It really was a sellout.)
Hacker News is a site for readers who think. No matter what your politics happens to be, we should all recognize the dangers present in disingenuous journalism.
If "U.S. Media lied to by multiple sources that collaborated to spread misleading information, issue retractions" is the most humiliating debacle in ages, then they're doing pretty damn good.
31 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 88.7 ms ] threadMultiple sources make it unlikely it was "mistake". It was almost certainly disinformation. The "mistake" was running with unverified information.
Consistently making "mistakes" that go in one direction indicates lack of integrity.
When multiple sources agree, it's not unverified—it's a deliberately spread lie.
> Consistently making "mistakes" that go in one direction indicates lack of integrity.
Consistently getting lied to in one direction implies that the people spreading these lies have a specific ideological goal in mind.
Greenwald is right, of course, that CNN screwed up on this story, but to call it the "most humiliating debacle in ages"? That's just goofy. What's humiliating is that we have a budding Hitler in our midst and we are apparently powerless to stop it.
That's the thing, he just reports the facts. Facts are not left or right-wing, they just are.
Yeah, I guess responding to an attack on our democracy by investigating the extent of the damage is pretty silly, isn't it. We should just sit around and go "oh man those wacky Russian, always up in our business... well, whacha gonna do about it? Nothing, of course, we wouldn't want to be silly." That would be the sensible course of action, clearly.
No we don't. That kind of hyperbole isn't productive.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/media/363990-fox-news-issues-cor...
Like when doing science, retracting bad information is a good sign; refusing to do so doesn't make you a better news source, it just makes you one that tries to hide your mistakes.
Otherwise Trump is by default winning the "battle".
Democracy has no chance to survive when the news media is 'owned' by one political party.
This is a symptom of a problem, a big problem.
Trump has just demanded (and got) an apology from a Washington Post reporter that posted a misleading photo suggesting a Trump rally was half-empty. (It really was a sellout.)
Hacker News is a site for readers who think. No matter what your politics happens to be, we should all recognize the dangers present in disingenuous journalism.
12/4: Reuters: "Mueller subpeona Trumps banking" 12/5: Reuters: "RETRACTED"
12/8: CNN: Wikileaks sent .@DonaldJTrumpJr secret email 12/8: RETRACTED