• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

This is why I hate political reporting

Billy Mitchell

Billy Mitchell

The King of Kong
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
178
Location
Fun Spot, USA
HuffPo has an article up about Hillary's testimony on Benghazi:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/hillary-clinton-ron-johnson_n_2533819.html

At the end of the article, this correction appears:

CORRECTION: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "Give me a break, Senator Johnson. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." The quote has been removed. We regret the error.
Click to expand...

For some reason, HuffPo reported Hillary called Johnson's questions a "fairy tale". They had the video embedded on their page. It was clear that she never said it. It never should have been included. Anyone reporting on the story should double check to make sure the most incidiary quote is accurate.

After being called out on it, HuffPo has removed the quote. That hasn't stopped other websites from running it, though:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/23/1181424/-Hillary-Clinton-tells-Ron-Johnson-to-give-her-a-break-calls-whole-thing-a-fairy-tale

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/01/clinton-calls-republican-version-of-benghazi-the-biggest-fairy-tale-ive-ever-seen-2486668.html

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/hillary-clinton-erupts-ron-johnson-ov

It's not journalism. It's just fucking lazy.
 
Billy Mitchell said:
HuffPo has an article up about Hillary's testimony on Benghazi:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/hillary-clinton-ron-johnson_n_2533819.html

At the end of the article, this correction appears:



For some reason, HuffPo reported Hillary called Johnson's questions a "fairy tale". They had the video embedded on their page. It was clear that she never said it. It never should have been included. Anyone reporting on the story should double check to make sure the most incidiary quote is accurate.

After being called out on it, HuffPo has removed the quote. That hasn't stopped other websites from running it, though:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/23/1181424/-Hillary-Clinton-tells-Ron-Johnson-to-give-her-a-break-calls-whole-thing-a-fairy-tale

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/01/clinton-calls-republican-version-of-benghazi-the-biggest-fairy-tale-ive-ever-seen-2486668.html

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/hillary-clinton-erupts-ron-johnson-ov

It's not journalism. It's just fucking lazy.
Click to expand...

The news is on page 1. The retraction is in the metro section page 7. It reminds me of CPAC ads that can say whatever the fuck they want for the benefit of the candidate they support, and the candidate can just say I didn't endorse that ad, or a judge telling a jury to disregard a statement.
 
Terrible. This is like when FoxNews runs bogus info on their "news" programs, and then tweets a correction, knowing that at least 70% of their audience has no idea what Twitter is.

How the hell do you screw up a direct quote?

Also, I wish Clinton had just starting flipping these political hacks the bird. The Benghazi report has been filed, and the "tough questions" have been asked and answered. None of these guys were there for anything other than political grandstanding. I bet the strong majority of that panel hadn't so much as glanced at the findings. They just wanted some camera time.
 
They are still whining about it. Clinton was coached in deception and deflection. She was able to fake cry. The liberals lie to us all the time and get away with it.
 
This is more about the lack responsibility on the internet. A myriad of sites do not act like newspapers and magazines use to in requiring accuracy before publishing.
 
This is what happens when you remove layers of editing and prioritize timeliness over accuracy. Get used to it.

At least you all can take solace in that we live in an incredible age of information and are all better off for it.
 
WakeandBake said:
capitalism kinda fucks up some shit knowwhatimsayin?
Click to expand...

Agreed...we need a different jounalistic model. Current method of reporting (on both sides of the aisle) is a joke. CNN is decent, but even they are pretty lazy. They just aren't blatantly biased AND lazy.
 
Different journalistic model in a capitalist society? How do you propose running a business without respect to what the consumers want?
 
Truth in Reporting laws for programs labeled "news."

Reinstate laws preventing the amalgamation of media in markets.

Canada and Western Europe have no issue balancing a free press with a social responsibility to report news honestly.
 
If I can go to my frozen food aisle and see the difference between Breyers "ice cream" and "frozen dairy dessert" I should be able to know the difference between news and entertainment.
 
Wrangor said:
Agreed...we need a different jounalistic model. Current method of reporting (on both sides of the aisle) is a joke. CNN is decent, but even they are pretty lazy. They just aren't blatantly biased AND lazy.
Click to expand...

You can say a lot about journalistic models, but laziness has nothing to do with it. I'd argue that journalists as people were MUCH more lazy back in the day than they are now.

Trying to legislate away infotainment is a complete waste. And trumpeting Western Europe's "socially responsible" free press is a complete joke.

You want to see real improvement in the quality of coverage? Click on ads.
 
PhDeac said:
If I can go to my frozen food aisle and see the difference between Breyers "ice cream" and "frozen dairy dessert" I should be able to know the difference between news and entertainment.
Click to expand...

Why not make it even easier, for those perhaps less savvy than yourself? There's a reason FoxNews abandoned plans for a Canadian affiliate--- they can't call themselves "news" there, and then knowingly report false information. There is zero customer confusion, as it should be. What a fabulous law.
 
Arlington, I was agreeing with you by giving an example of how a company has to distinguish between which of two similar products a consumer may be getting.
 
has piers morgan always been insufferable and i'm just now noticing?
 
Always.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top