NBC called it an "Editors Note", as opposed to screwing up, lying, then covering it up

This is what is at the top of the story on their website. The inaccurate story was out for 4 1/2 hours. Get over it.

Oh, so that's OK then? LOL ?

Yes, because they did the ethical thing, not every source will be reliable, and for all we know that three senior officials are the ones who are lying.
This is how news works, you report on the story, if new info comes out you retract and admit fault.

My point was that neither wire tapping nor logging should have been happening.

No, its not how the news works, nor was it the ethical thing. The ethical thing was to be responsible journalists who verify before publication, a mantra that should have been seared into their flesh with brands after this many high profile fuckups across the media. I could post the speech from Doubt and talk about what separates journalists from rumor mills and how lies travel the world while the truth is getting its shoes on and so on so forth but its all rather rote at this point. Major news organization posts bombshell, hours later bombshell turns out to be dud and retracts, we merry trump cultists denounce it as fake news, someone counters 'but they're credible because they retracted', I say you can't stuff the feathers back in the pillow once they're already out on the wind. Rinse, lather, repeat

Where did you convey that message?


They had two separate sources, no way to verify it 100%.
What is your standard for the news?

This post was edited by Plaguefear on May 3 2018 07:43pm

They had a story that got contradicted within hours of publishing. Clearly, whatever they did, they did wrong.
The reliance on anonymous sources and rush to be first-to-publish-or-perish combine to create the deluge of fake news.

The sources who disputed/corrected the story were anonymous. Did the FBI agents who talked to Rudy go on the record? Lol.

I've never understood the criticism of anonymous sources. The vast majority of great journalism is sourced from people who don't want to come out publicly and release the information. I think taking issue with anonymous sources is taking issue with journalism itself.

That said, NBC deserves criticism for this. No doubt.

This post was edited by IceMage on May 3 2018 08:26pm

You can have the truth come from anonymous sources, you can have falsehoods come from anonymous sources. Its not inherently better or worse at finding the truth: There will be people who wouldn't be willing to go on the record with their statements that you couldn't get otherwise, and there are less reliable sources you'll get doing it. What anonymous sources do compromise, is responsibility. Without anyone to hold accountable for the lies, misrepresentations or misinterpretations, it falls entirely on the journalists to take responsibility. And in a world of good actors, journalists wouldn't be afraid to use anonymous sources when its necessary, but would take strict scrutiny and verify with both skepticism and due diligence. Which of course fucking nobody does in a 24/7 news cycle of clickbait journalism driven by economic necessity.

Who was the last major active site with a perfect track record of verification and never rushed to publish and always put everything under a microscope? It was Wikileaks
and see how they've been crucified for the motive of their sources and their political bias and unfounded allegations of conspiracy.
meanwhile even previously reputable and nonpartisan boring news sites can't help but stumble into fake news these days.