Media Bias

[Cunt]

The corrections appeared as soon as new evidence came to light, and they were not hidden in the form of a two sentence note somewhere on page eight. Nobody who read the original stories at WaPo, CNN, NBC or AP would have missed their subsequent corrections.

Funny I tried to use this as an example of 'fake news' because it was so clear, and here you are misrepresenting the events.
I'll take Brietbarts word over yours on this issue. They don't have to pretend to be offended by the kids' hats.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/201 ... -too-late/

The lawyers, noting that the update came “41 days after it launched its false attacks on a minor,” then criticized the Post for failing to apologize to Sandmann and “seek forgiveness.”

It doesn't matter though, because it isn't good enough to satisfy you as a clean example of 'fake news'.

Why don't you try to offer examples? The key characteristic should be that left or right, progressive or conservative, red or blue, both will see it as clearly 'fake news'.

The stolen issue election would be no good as a test case, because it would be auto-censored off all major social media platforms...

The ease with which you jump from news media to social media as if the difference between them did not matter is remarkable, though not surprising.

The example I gave, Sandman, was spread by blue-checkd twitter journalists, and across social AND legacy media.

The difference matters, but the point was that censorship would prevent using 'stolen election fake news' as an example. Not to mention the fact that lots of Republicans (and liberals) think this election was stolen, or the 2016 one.

[JimC]

Take Amazon, they make most of their money from their cloud services and massive contracts like the one they have with the DOD. It's fair to wonder if a consideration of the bottom line factored into deciding to drop certain rightwing sites at all.

To the extent that major corporations make money from government contracts, then the interests of that government may be one (amongst many) factors that influence how they perceive the best way to optimise their bottom line...

[Sean Hayden]

You do realize that you're just declaring their intentions despite evidence to the contrary right?

It reminds me of the "every act is actually selfish" debate. Despite evidence of altruism it will always be possible to find a way to assert it's actually selfish...

[Cunt]

Sean, it isn't 'all about the bottom line'.

Unless it is you that is contractually bound to specific outcomes.

Then your bottom is on the line. Multiply that times a few billion, and voila! Paradise

[JimC]

You do realize that you're just declaring their intentions despite evidence to the contrary right?

It reminds me of the "every act is actually selfish" debate. Despite evidence of altruism it will always be possible to find a way to assert it's actually selfish...

Which intentions, and what is the "evidence to the contrary"?

And even if acts by individuals or corporations are ultimately selfish when you dig right down, in practical terms, reciprocity does the job effectively, within a network of mutual obligations, when allowed to...

[Sean Hayden]

They act only to benefit the bottom line. The evidence to the contrary being actions whose motivations make more sense from the social side of things.

[Sean Hayden]

All acts aren't ultimately selfish when you dig right down either. No digging is required. Nothing real is being uncovered. It's a trick anyone can learn.

You simply ignore the evidence of altruism and posit a plausible selfish motivation, and presto, all acts are selfish...

[Hermit]

The corrections appeared as soon as new evidence came to light, and they were not hidden in the form of a two sentence note somewhere on page eight. Nobody who read the original stories at WaPo, CNN, NBC or AP would have missed their subsequent corrections.

Funny I tried to use this as an example of 'fake news' because it was so clear, and here you are misrepresenting the events.
I'll take Brietbarts word over yours on this issue. They don't have to pretend to be offended by the kids' hats.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/201 ... -too-late/

The lawyers, noting that the update came “41 days after it launched its false attacks on a minor,” then criticized the Post for failing to apologize to Sandmann and “seek forgiveness.”

It doesn't matter though, because it isn't good enough to satisfy you as a clean example of 'fake news'.

Breitbart would have you believe the editor's note, dated March 2, 2019, is the first acknowledgement by The Washington Post that its original report, dated January 19, was factually wrong. It was not. That article was changed (including the title) with updates as new information came to hand. Subsequent articles continued to correct the original impression given. Among them were: "Viral standoff between a tribal elder and a high schooler is more complicated than it first seemed" (January 23) and "Kentucky bishop apologizes to Covington Catholic students, says he expects their exoneration" (January 25).

Other media also kept correcting their initial reports as new information became available.

Two days later, after a longer video was released, media outlets began to withdraw from their initial analysis and made edits clarifying the changes.[94] For example, CNN titled an article "Teens in Make America Great Again hats taunted a Native American elder at the Lincoln Memorial", but upon revision, the new headline read "Teen in confrontation with Native American elder says he was trying to defuse the situation". The New York Times's original coverage was titled "Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Mob Native Elder at Indigenous Peoples March" before following up the next day with "Fuller Picture Emerges of Viral Video of Native American Man and Catholic Students".[95] Some organizations did not change their original writings, but added a notice directing users to newer articles with a more complete account. (Link)

In short: Breitbart with misleading reportage. Our member from Yellowknife falls for it. Water is wet.

[Sean Hayden]

I nominate Hermit to be rationalia's first saint.

[Cunt]

The corrections appeared as soon as new evidence came to light, and they were not hidden in the form of a two sentence note somewhere on page eight. Nobody who read the original stories at WaPo, CNN, NBC or AP would have missed their subsequent corrections.

Funny I tried to use this as an example of 'fake news' because it was so clear, and here you are misrepresenting the events.
I'll take Brietbarts word over yours on this issue. They don't have to pretend to be offended by the kids' hats.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/201 ... -too-late/

The lawyers, noting that the update came “41 days after it launched its false attacks on a minor,” then criticized the Post for failing to apologize to Sandmann and “seek forgiveness.”

It doesn't matter though, because it isn't good enough to satisfy you as a clean example of 'fake news'.

Breitbart would have you believe the editor's note, dated March 2, 2019, is the first acknowledgement by The Washington Post that its original report, dated January 19, was factually wrong. It was not. That article was changed (including the title) with updates as new information came to hand. Subsequent articles continued to correct the original impression given. Among them were: "Viral standoff between a tribal elder and a high schooler is more complicated than it first seemed" (January 23) and "Kentucky bishop apologizes to Covington Catholic students, says he expects their exoneration" (January 25).

Other media also kept correcting their initial reports as new information became available.

Two days later, after a longer video was released, media outlets began to withdraw from their initial analysis and made edits clarifying the changes.[94] For example, CNN titled an article "Teens in Make America Great Again hats taunted a Native American elder at the Lincoln Memorial", but upon revision, the new headline read "Teen in confrontation with Native American elder says he was trying to defuse the situation". The New York Times's original coverage was titled "Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Mob Native Elder at Indigenous Peoples March" before following up the next day with "Fuller Picture Emerges of Viral Video of Native American Man and Catholic Students".[95] Some organizations did not change their original writings, but added a notice directing users to newer articles with a more complete account. (Link)

In short: Breitbart with misleading reportage. Our member from Yellowknife falls for it. Water is wet.

Complicated?

It was an old crackpot trying to intimidate a kid he didn't like. It's not complicated.

[Hermit]

You do realize that you're just declaring their intentions despite evidence to the contrary right?

It reminds me of the "every act is actually selfish" debate. Despite evidence of altruism it will always be possible to find a way to assert it's actually selfish...

Um, yeah. I think of altruism as intelligent selfishness even though it does become self-defeating when you lay down your life for others. You can't really expect people around you to be nice to you if you are not nice to them.

[Hermit]

I nominate Hermit to be rationalia's first saint.

[Hermit]

The corrections appeared as soon as new evidence came to light, and they were not hidden in the form of a two sentence note somewhere on page eight. Nobody who read the original stories at WaPo, CNN, NBC or AP would have missed their subsequent corrections.

Funny I tried to use this as an example of 'fake news' because it was so clear, and here you are misrepresenting the events.
I'll take Brietbarts word over yours on this issue. They don't have to pretend to be offended by the kids' hats.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/201 ... -too-late/

The lawyers, noting that the update came “41 days after it launched its false attacks on a minor,” then criticized the Post for failing to apologize to Sandmann and “seek forgiveness.”

It doesn't matter though, because it isn't good enough to satisfy you as a clean example of 'fake news'.

Breitbart would have you believe the editor's note, dated March 2, 2019, is the first acknowledgement by The Washington Post that its original report, dated January 19, was factually wrong. It was not. That article was changed (including the title) with updates as new information came to hand. Subsequent articles continued to correct the original impression given. Among them were: "Viral standoff between a tribal elder and a high schooler is more complicated than it first seemed" (January 23) and "Kentucky bishop apologizes to Covington Catholic students, says he expects their exoneration" (January 25).

Other media also kept correcting their initial reports as new information became available.

Two days later, after a longer video was released, media outlets began to withdraw from their initial analysis and made edits clarifying the changes.[94] For example, CNN titled an article "Teens in Make America Great Again hats taunted a Native American elder at the Lincoln Memorial", but upon revision, the new headline read "Teen in confrontation with Native American elder says he was trying to defuse the situation". The New York Times's original coverage was titled "Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Mob Native Elder at Indigenous Peoples March" before following up the next day with "Fuller Picture Emerges of Viral Video of Native American Man and Catholic Students".[95] Some organizations did not change their original writings, but added a notice directing users to newer articles with a more complete account. (Link)

In short: Breitbart with misleading reportage. Our member from Yellowknife falls for it. Water is wet.

Complicated?

It was an old crackpot trying to intimidate a kid he didn't like. It's not complicated.

Lol. Judging an article by its title. I guess "Archipelago" must be about geography then. You obviously have not read the article. Or any other I linked to.

[pErvinalia]

Regarding social media banning, a member from Ratskep who's basically a socialist has been suspended multiple times on Facebook for political posts. His next suspension will be a year.

But Facebook is an arm of the leftists...

[Hermit]

My 30-day ban for 'inciting violence' is over. I suggested the media nail a certain politician to the floor over corruption and FB's mods don't understand idiom nor their own 'Community Guidelines'.
Given that the next step is a year ban, I must now resort to just posting photos of kittens. Hopefully, no dogs will report me for specism.

The cat on the right has a look of "im about to incite some violence"... just saying

Bugger. Don't tell anyone, FFS!

Link