Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What about The Washington Post retracting parts of their Steele Dossier/Russian Collusion articles?

The Media Critic for the Post, Eric Wemple, criticised CNN and other news organizations for not correcting their stories and on Friday the Post itself changed stories it had earlier published (and received Plitzer Prize for).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/media-washington-post-steele-dossier/2021/11/12/f7c9b770-43d5-11ec-a88e-2aa4632af69b_story.html
"The Post’s decision to edit and repost the Millian stories is highly unusual in the news industry.
Mainstream publications often add corrections to published stories when credible new information emerges...But it’s rare for a publication to make wholesale changes after publication and to republish the edited story, especially more than four years afterward."
Questions raised by some: Why didn't the Mueller investigation reveal the lack of substantive sources?
Wow, new information comes in and a major media outlet issues retractions and corrections. The NY Times & WaPo and other responsible outlets issue corrections on a weekly basis. That's the way responsible news outlets operate.

Seriously, google - new york times corrections
You'll see a hits representing a corrections page every week. They've always done this.

Now google - fox news corrections
Wow, no weekly hits! Wonder why?
@LamontCranston I don't watch TV news; generally I can read 3X as fast as they talk. My biggest objection to Fox is how they scramble news & opinion so you don't know what you're getting. For what it's worth, I've never watched Maddow.
@LamontCranston I think it's hilarious you bring up the collusion thing, considering the fact that the investigators determined that Russian officials did, in fact, offer the Trump campaign assistance, which they accepted.
llloydfred · 56-60, M
PrincessAwesome · 22-25, F
I think the bigger story is Trump colluding with Russia, but I guess the Fashies don't care about that.
PrincessAwesome · 22-25, F
@DavidT8899 Of course there isn't. Also, Antifa did 1/6.
DavidT8899 · 22-25, M
@PrincessAwesome Well,as to your second point,I don't recall anyone saying Antifa was involved in 1/6.But there has been indications that undercover F.B.I angels were provoking the crowd at the captial.As to to your first point,you might want to consider the fact that the only criminal indictments-and convictions-have been issued against the people who were running the Russia investigation.
PrincessAwesome · 22-25, F
@DavidT8899 I know, I'm making fun of you for being an NPC.
Funny how Fashies claim that police were trying to provoke the crowd, but y'all trying to block an investigation.
Northwest · M
What about it? They corrected their stories, as they should and as more information becomes available.

I don't know who's raising these questions about the Mueller investigation, but it seems as if you don't know that either.
@Northwest And it will as the Durham investigation continues. 😄
Northwest · M
@LamontCranston [quote]And it will as the Durham investigation continues. 😄[/quote]

Yawn.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
Perhaps the Mueller investigation didn't reveal the lack of substantive sources because the sources didn't confess to lying to the FBI (and the Mueller investigation) until recently. Which is why the media is now issuing corrections as well.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
I know it's hard for folks who are used to Fox News and other networks that stick to their guns even when presented with information that proves they're lying to understand what's going on when a news network retracts a story that turns out to be false.

It's this new thing all the cool kids are doing called journalistic integrity.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@LamontCranston How's Margot these days?
@DavidT8899 [quote]Could you be kind enough to give a specific example of when Fox News did this?[/quote]
Did what? Refused to issue a retraction when they are wrong? I don't know, try every single broadcast day.
@LordShadowfire piss poor response: well, they are always wrong so we don't need to give examples.
Especially when you measure any sch against one of the most sustained and widspread misinformation campaigns in media history.
FreeSpirit1 · 51-55, F
They wonder why the public ranks journalism so low in the credibility dept.?
Changing a story to fit the information now is not a correction, it's an edit. The internet is forever though and people see what they're doing.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
Did they? If so what difference will that make. The anti Trumpers will always think that the reports in the Steele pack of lies were true.
redredred · M
Somewhat impressive. I’ll be really impressed if the New York Times ever returns Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer.
Adaydreambeliever · 56-60, F
Plitzer Prize eh?
Graylight · 51-55, F
@Adaydreambeliever It's what you get when you think the story is the best ever even though no one else does. All the top conservatives have one.
@Adaydreambeliever very witty comment on a stuck "u" on the keyboard. Why not respond to the substance of the unearned PUlitzer?
Graylight · 51-55, F
@LamontCranston Belarus-born businessman sought proximity to Trump’s world in 2016" is the article in question, and the big corrections are about source attribution.

WaPo didn't win a Pulitzer for that specific Archos. The sets warded the prize "for deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)
https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/staffs-new-york-times-and-washington-post
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M
That’s the closest to a mea culpa they will admit.
Stopmakingsense · 56-60, F
It's odd that we had to spend so much time on that!
Pretzel · 61-69, M
wasn't looking for the truth?

 
Post Comment