Wouldn’t “FAKE NEWS” save you an awful lot of typing?
Not trying to stoop to your level. If it’s above your head, feel free to skip it.
All snark aside:
-
Is it possible this is confirmation bias at work on your part?
-
I’m not sure I’d say that “wiretap” vs “pen register” counts as “egregiously erroneous.” Do you believe it does?
2a) Can you provide any examples of factual errors of this nature committed by NBL (or other MSM) that were not retracted?
.
Anything is possible. That applies to 99% of posts to these threads. You do your best, but if you want to rule out discussions based on this type of notion then you may as well not start.
I suspect you may have misunderstood my intention with “egregiously erroneous”, in apparently assuming that I meant that the difference was enormously significant (or more damaging?).
All I was saying was that it’s a black-and-white factual matter where the evidence is likely to be pretty clear, and when it becomes apparent that it was one and not the other then NBC would be compelled to retract. But there are many other cases where the issues are more complex and the evidence more ambiguous, and even if it becomes apparent that the sources for the original story are a lot shakier than originally assumed, it’s far easier for the media entity to dig in and stand behind the story.
Not only do I know, I just looked up the dictionary definition to confirm, and then asked Jeeves.
Implicit in your comment that NBC News (or perhaps the libtard lamestream news media in general; you weren’t specific) tends to get stories wrong “in one direction” is there is some underlying bias that drives these “mistakes.” I thought perhaps you might offer some other examples to support your claim, but now realize my folly in stepping into the morass of an actual conversation with you. It won’t happen again.
Good idea. Stick to jokes.
Unlike a Breitbart retraction. They wrote a hit piece on Loretta Lynch. Turns out, they had the wrong fucking Loretta Lynch. All of their information was based on the wrong person. They didn’t retract the story (later deleted it), they left it up and just put a correction at the bottom reading: “The Loretta Lynch identified as the Whitewater attorney, was, in fact a different attorney”.
F-P, I also don’t understand why you seem to be having such a problem with this question.
It seems pretty self-evident to me that if a news organization is reporting on acts of wrongdoing by government officials, then somehow exaggerating or overstating the wrongdoing IS pretty much the only “direction” they can realistically get the story wrong in.
Remember, news organizations, no matter what their political leanings, don’t tend to publish stories along the lines of “Here’s a Minor Misstep That Isn’t Really Very Noteworthy”. The news media overwhelmingly make their livings reporting on Bad Stuff, so all corrections are naturally going to tend towards “Actually, in this case the Bad Stuff isn’t really as bad as we said it was”.
Revisions of the form “Wow, Actually This Bad Stuff Is Even WORSE Than We Said It Was” are published as follow-up news stories, not as corrections to previous stories.
He’s one of the resident water carriers for the current administration, that’s why.
See post #4420. It wasn’t about this one story, it’s about a tendency.
The original point was (in response to the broader point made in the post which preceded it) that concerns about the media are not adequately countered by pointing out that NBC acted honorably in this particular instance.
Shouldn’t you specify the left-wing media? You don’t seem to have a problem with the right-wing media lying their asses off.
I am not familiar with the right wing media. You, however, seem obsessed with it. Perhaps you should find another outlet.
Bull----shit.
Nobody stopping you from delivering a few snappy lines! Maybe use one of those symbol things that let people know that its funny.
It would have to be, since you’ve ignored at least a half dozen folks asking you to give even a single example.
Prediction: that tendency on the part of F-P will continue. We’ll get more wide-ranging general claims such as:
… but inexplicably, we’ll never learn precisely what those “many other cases” are.
People are saying. Many people.
Good people. They’re saying.
Just sayin’ that they’re saying.
I think a lot of Trump’s critics are going to be bitterly disappointed when he
a) shuts down the investigations, and
b) the outrage of the country doesn’t match their level of outrage.
His poll numbers are increasing. He’s got a rocking economy and he’s on the cusp of a once seemingly impossible peace in North Korea. A 43% approval rating or not, he’s getting pretty close to being teflon Don.
Are you under the delusion that Kim Jong Un will give up his nuclear weapons? Some very bad shit is going to hit the fan in the Koreas, probably before the end of the year. Plus, Trump is going to get very little done with a Democratic House.
Only if the Russians allow election of a Democratic House.