- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
Cross-posted from “The Guardian Retracts Their Coverage of the Shooter Being a Leftist” by @livejamie@lemmy.zip in !chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
You must log in or register to comment.
So they just leave the headline alone? They know many people don’t even go past that…
A war would be the biggest story of their lifetimes.
But how do they profit? Like soldiers and conscripts aren’t going to be paying them a subscription fee.
I’m annoyed that this post doesn’t include a link to the SOURCE. Grrr. Here it is.
There. Now it isn’t just a questionable possbly faked pic, but a verifiable retraction with the misleading ‘leftist’ bits still at the top of the page and in the sub-headline.
Sorry, I didn’t think people would think fake news could appear in here. That wasn’t something I was considering.
There’s a bunch of tankies that constantly post Sputnik and RT and so on in various communities, and those places are very often running stories that I’d pidgeonhole as “fake news”. Always a good idea to cite and link your sources, as a general rule.
Will do that from now on. Do those people get banned and taken care of if they’re found to be posting bullshit?
No, because they do it on .ml, which is run by tankies
People should always question their sources just as a general rule.
it can, and frequently does
Sheesh, and that’s the Guardian. One of the last good ones.
Pathetic and disgraceful for the guardian.
The guardian is usually highly reputable. They’re one of the few left that I would consider reputable. Bit of a shame. At least they retracted it.
Idk the retraction is pretty honest. Not to mention, that source may have said things originally, and not wanted to continue to say those same things afterwards for any number of reasons(they were lies or even, they don’t feel comfortable being publicized)
Why did such an internationally respected english news source go with such flimsy evidence on a topic where the consequences of leaning into rightwing narratives are so high?
because none of these major publications aside from propublica and others like it value real journalism because we live in a world that is so full of the lie that getting the story first is more important than getting the story right. the guardian is better than many, but many people who work there came from news orgs that valued speed over accuracy. blame advertisers normalizing shit like getting every news org to investigate who al gore was going to pick for is running mate. a story that required no scoop. we were all gonna find out no matter what
A reasonable person would not feel comfortable being publicized in this context.
Unless they want to get on the talk show circuit
Genuine question, why? They reported on the information they had, even if it wasn’t flattering to the left. Then they retracted it when the information changed.
My neighbor Steve says he knew Robinson personally, even went to the same church, and it was a brain parasite that caused him to go crazy and shoot someone.
I’m just gonna print that in the New England Journal of Medicine, because after all, it’s the information I have, and I can always retract it later, right?
/s 🙄
Misinformation is deeply dangerous and respectable journalists have a duty not to print bullshit in the first place. Sure, mistakes happen, but we don’t just hand-wave it away with “well, they said sorry sooooo 🤷♀️”.
Par for the course for the left
Edit: I’m talking about receiving misplaced blame
Lol so do the right and center score +15 on this course typically? Or more like a DNF type awkward situation?
I’m talking about receiving misplaced blame.
ah gotcha!
The ‘leftist’ dressed up as ths rapist on Hallowe’en to own maga.
Can’t retract what that casing said, lmao
“Catch this fascist”
Is the new
“I SHOT REAGAN”
Fuck fascism.
The casings were engraved with groyper memes, yes.
