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?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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?
DavidT8899 · 22-25, M
@ElwoodBlues Uh,because Fox News generally tries to report the news accurately in the first place?
@DavidT8899 [big][b][i]ROTFL!!![/i][/b][/big]
Actually, according to several studies, the NPR audience is the best informed, and the Fox News audience is the least informed.

2011: Fox News Viewers Uninformed, NPR Listeners Not, Poll Suggests https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/#531a082f4fd8

2012: Survey: NPR’s listeners best-informed, Fox viewers worst-informed
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/

2014: 5 facts about Fox News
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about-fox-news/
Also http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/

2015 Fox News viewers tend to be less informed, says new study
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/fox-news-viewers-tend-to-be-less-informed-says-new-study/article/4337622015-2019
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

Interestingly, Fox won a lawsuit in court ensuring their right to lie and misinform the public.
See: http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public
@ElwoodBlues don't hit your head too hard while you are rolling around the floor laughing-or maybe you did already.
Not very current polls but if you want to say the npr viewers are the most supercilious and likely to denigrate fellow citizens, I will heartily agree.
Graylight · 51-55, F
@LamontCranston [quote]Not very current polls[/quote]
True, it's a cut & paste from an old debate. So now is your opportunity to present newer data showing how Fox has totally changed and is now super reliable. If you can present such data, you've won the debate. In the absence of newer data, it's fair to assume that Fox is as bad as ever. And perhaps that's why Fox's lawyers said in court that nobody should expect Tucker Carlson to tell the truth!
@ElwoodBlues You can presume what you wish, Bluesy. You should seek out the remedy, if any, for your invincible ignorance.
@LamontCranston Translation: Elwood's evidence against Faux News is old, while Lamont's evidence in favor of Fox News is nonexistent!!

Tell you what though, I will do a bit of your research for you ... Oh, wait, this is from 2020, and it says you literally cannot believe Fox News!!

[quote]Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."[/quote]
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

@ElwoodBlues Carlson, like Rachel Maddow or the CNN clwns Wemple especially took to task, runs an opinion show. (By the way, Maddow was pushing the collusion narrative briskly all along.)
I frankly do not think there is a nightly news show as well done as Bret Baier's "Special Report" 6 p.m. eastern.
@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