So where do we place the fact that Hillary Clinton has been "investigated" by the FBI for three decades?

The WaPo piece went out of its way to mislead people about what Trump said that was classified. The writers knew full well that the laptop bomb plot was public, but they didnt identify it and carefully worded the article to suggest Trump had leaked the plot to Russia. Anyone reading CNN a month ago could know all the details. As far as anyone knows right now, the only new detail Trump added was a city name.

How is that the media doing their job? Its a hit piece designed to slam Trump and take more effort to unravel than to headline.

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 18 2017 07:07am

I thought it was pretty clear that the information leaked was the city where the source was. You can minimize it all you want, it's a serious story when the president lets slip code-word information in a meeting with the Russians.

I thought it was pretty clear the authors had to jump through hoops to format their hit piece to insinuate the entire plot was code word secret in order to greatly exaggerate the story, yet still be technically correct about. They could not have arrived at such misleading news without malicious intention

Speaking of fake news with malicious intention, good night sweet prince of darkness, 1940-2017

I'm not sure why so many people get up an arms about the current state of the media. it's not their fault, it's ours. we're the ones (in both parties) who demand real time information. they're no more evil than the tobacco industry (excepting of course malicious or misleading practices, which holds up for both in the analogy). I suppose one could put up a fuss about the lack of retractions, but that would fill half of their paper. Or more realistically, it would be stuffed into a backwater of their website and never be seen by anyone not specifically looking for it, why bother?

It's a pretty easy to follow flow of information, sites like WaPo or other orgs tend to crack stories under unverified sourced. Then the other websites cite this as unverified and even label it another site's reporting. Then as it is litigated over the next few days the more reputable sites put out pretty good articles on the event, even with timelines of when and where information changed.

but again, it's our fault. we demand instant information, then demand it's accurate. then when it's made relatively accurate in the amount of time that it used to take to write stories in the olden pre-internet days, it's still not enough. stop worrying about bias, and start worrying about your ability to read for bias. start teaching it in schools. because this train isn't stopping. it's the mcdonaldization effect on media, faster here however doesnt make for consistency the same way.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 18 2017 08:04am

Heard something similar about selling guns to and buying diamonds from african hellholes

did u read the whole post or stop at "it's not their fault"? i know that phrase is a trigger

the mainstream media, which is supposed to report facts and news, decided to turn into a version of tmz with less integrity in the name of profit and its *our* fault?

i get they have to shift to the adhd masses now, but reasonable expectations like 2 sources before one runs with something should hold consistent.

2 pretty clear points you're missing.

1. that bolded is just a norm you're holding them to from pre-internet. bob dylan, etc etc

2. if they hold to the above they bring about their own destruction.

if they refuse to provide unsubstantiated real time coverage of high profile events the world's information flow goes over to fucks like Alex Jones or the Young Turks. in the course of a half generation the entire mainstream media would be set aside. big deal right? wrong. while we can spew anecdotes of poorly journaled articles with a lack of integrity we must also remember that these people work in a corporate structure, have a journalistic background, and are subject to much more scrutiny than the podcast in the basement setups. this relationship is sub-optimal, but it can always get worse.

the poignant question is "can a legitimate news source survivie in today's culture", to which i answer "not for long and not as is".

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 18 2017 08:43am