Nice catch!
I didn’t “hunt” at all. It was the morning after the story broke, and I thought the juxtaposition of the three major cable news networks’ front page headlines at the time was interesting.
Except that my post was on the 17th, not the 16th. Here, try this one, which, I think is the snapshot preceding my post.
And actual fake news from Trump is what? Boring?
As Czarcasm pointed out, MSNBC deals with current breaking stories. They had the story when it broke but it was pushed down as other stories took it’s place. However, it was covered at the time it broke.
There are also plenty of other stories on Franken’s mess on MSNBC so you can’t claim it was ignored or buried, they have a different way of handling news than others.
That example I gave of Fox was 20 minutes after the Flynn story broke but they hid it far down the page and made it as inconspicuous as possible while headlining a many months old story.
Admittedly, I don’t spend much time perusing the headlines of MSNBC, so perhaps you’re right. Has your experience been that stories damaging to Trump / Republicans also fall completely off the front page within a matter of hours? (don’t worry, it’s not a gotcha, I’m not going to try to dig up examples where this might not be true, I’m genuinely just soliciting an opinion from someone who probably reads MSNBC more than I do).
That’s from May!
These are from the morning of 17 November.
And, presumably, the last actual snapshot prior to your post.
This MSNBC front page from the 17th has two different stories about Franken.
Isn’t that…interesting.
OK, perhaps my choice of words should have been finer. Perhaps “Trumpists” would be better? From my observation, and that includes the president, there is an attempt to label MSM, as a whole, as “fake news.”
Actually, I don’t go to MSNBC, I prefer to read stories rather than watch a video.
I saw the tweet soon after it went out and heard of the correction by that evening. Looking it up, it sounds as though Ross had issued a clarification/retraction the night of the error. Granted “quickly” is a subjective term but that qualifies in my book.
By way of comparison, Fox left that Seth Rich story up for days and then quietly removed it without apology or comment. By my thinking, ABC screwed up in its reporting but did fine in its accountability and response.
I like “Trumpeteers”, really fits the childishness. They wear MAGA hats instead of mouse ears.
You have to remember, that issuing a retraction is a sign of fake news.
That’s perfect. I am amazed I have not seen it before.
I’ve been using “Trumpettes” since he began his run.
I tend toward “sTrumpets”.
The more virulent ones are Trumpcucks since they seem to be the only ones who accept “cuck” as an insult.
Thanks. I’m obviously an amateur operator of the Wayback Machine. I got the impression, from running coach that the times on the site are given in GMT. I’m in Utah, Mountain Standard Time, GMT -7. I dug into this a bit more, because I distinctly remember going to their homepage that morning and doing the search, and not finding any results. In looking through the archives, it looks like all mention of ‘Franken’ actually fell off the front page (or at least the portion of the front page that is loaded automatically) sometime between the 18:03 and 19:35 snapshots. The 18:03 one has a green link though. From their FAQ, I gather that that means they didn’t get a good archive at that point in time:
So I guess we’d have to roll back to the next-earliest snapshot, which was at 16:35 (that should be 9:35 my time, two hours prior to my post, unless I’m screwing up the timezone conversion). So the story appears to have fallen off sometime between 9:35 and 12:35 (Mountain time), and my post was at 11:36.
Conclusion: I’m once again pretty confident I didn’t mis-remember.
The title of the thread? that ** ABC News shit the bed by publishing fake news** ???
thats much more than just something you find ‘interesting’.
So, worst case is that they didn’t have the story when you checked? Not MSNBC’s fault that you didn’t look earlier.