Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Beardown wrote:
pittmike wrote:
I thought it was Buzzfeed first then CNN?
No. CNN was first. Buzzfeed had it for some time. Once CNN launched, Buzzfeed said "Fuck it, we'll finish it if they won't go all the way."
Several media outlets had this for months. Same with Congressmen and Senators.
If I send you a PM with a wild, salacious claim, you "have it". You can even circulate that PM with other people, and you will all collectively "have it". Then, someone else entirely can tell a fourth (?) party that you all "have it", and here is what "it" says.
Now, at any point, has there been any effort to verify the original claim, any at all? You originally "had it", you circulated "it", and someone else was briefed on "its" existence. What exactly has been done to valuate the original claim's veracity?
The point is, it doesn't matter whether this thing actually exists, has been known to exist for some time, and/or whether other people have been briefed on its existence: publishing the claim that, let's say, "Joe Blow is the King of France" is still, at the very least, perpetuating "fake news".
If John McCain had a PDF with those words ("Joe Blow is the King of France") on it, shared it with others, and the President and President-elect were briefed on what everyone else was talking about (let's pretend for the moment that people care who the King of France is), publishing that PDF can only be considered fake news, no matter how much "the people should decide for themselves if Joe Blow is the King of France" hand-wringing is done about it. Because if that argument gets the publication classified as "inaccurate but genuine reporting", then why don't the people have a right to decide for themselves whether Hillary had her blood clot doctor murdered?
I do agree with vegan that CNN simply stating that Obama and Trump were briefed on a dossier, that is real news. Still, other news organizations had a different standard regarding what they were willing to report, for whatever reasons. I don't see how anyone could really take issue with CNN reporting something that actually happened.
Yes, that is newsworthy. I would argue, though, that harping on the bad, ugly things alleged in the (then) secret dossier--BUT NOT MAKING ANY CLAIM ABOUT ITS VERACITY--in a story about people being briefed on the existence of the document begins to deviate from ethical journalism.
You're conflating several things here. First of all, CNN said it could not corroborate the claims made in the dossier, which is why they didn't publish the contents.
Quote:
The point is, it doesn't matter whether this thing actually exists, has been known to exist for some time, and/or whether other people have been briefed on its existence: publishing the claim that, let's say, "Joe Blow is the King of France" is still, at the very least, perpetuating "fake news".
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. If you're saying Buzzfeed is guilty of "publishing fake news," then you may have some grounds. Other mainstream outlets would agree, as evidenced by the criticism Buzzfeed has received since moving forward with the story. If you're saying CNN is publishing fake news, then that's simply not true.
Quote:
I would argue, though, that harping on the bad, ugly things alleged in the (then) secret dossier--BUT NOT MAKING ANY CLAIM ABOUT ITS VERACITY--in a story about people being briefed on the existence of the document begins to deviate from ethical journalism
Who did this? CNN spoke in generalities regarding the contents ("compromising information") and repeatedly stated it could not verify the veracity of the dossier.
Quote:
At this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations.
Along with reporting that the dossiers were presented to Trump and Obama, CNN also reported that the contents have been circulated among different agencies and members of congress for the past few months. There's nothing "fake" here.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
