I count 9 headlines displayed on that page.
You found a window of a few hours that the Franken story was not in the top 9 breaking stories.
♪ *Who’s the leader of the club we go to watch girls pee?
D-O-N
A-L-D
T-R-U-M-P!* ♪
Words and expressions convey certain meanings, so I too, assumed it with the way you titled the thread for starters, and the expressions you also used elsewhere. And I know I wouldn’t be apathetic if I found out a major news agency deliberately was fabricating news, much like the clip I showed you in post #45. Why wasn’t these people fired long ago in the link I provided? But I’ll take your word for it, you’re not outraged. If so, not sure what you’re trying to accomplish here.
“Interesting” followed by a slanted interpretation of a story is akin to saying “Just sayin’” after such a story.
So if I can find a quote of an NRA employee saying something like, “Gun owners have been raked over the coals for murdering children,” you’d take that as probably the NRA conceding that gun owners as a class are child murders? Because it isn’t a clear denial of the claim either…
Personally, I wouldn’t dream of interpreting such a statement in that way.
I don’t think I’ve watched or read more than 30 seconds of MSNBC content in years. I flip over to Fox News every now and then just to see what they are doing. And frankly, I’m getting tired of CNN ignoring other news in order to have a dozen talking heads examine Trump’s latest tweet from 35 different angles. I want to know more about the world than continual discussion of Trump’s latest stupidity… which really could be its own network.
I wouldn’t take that particular statement as a conceding it, although I wouldn’t claim that that sentence on its own is a very good denial either. And it would surprise me if such a hyperbolic claim were not met with clear and robust denials elsewhere. Like I said earlier, it was on an internal call. I suspect he was mostly trying to impress the gravity of the error on his employees. I don’t think he was trying to condemn or exonerate ABC News like you might expect to see in more public statements on the matter.
Sounds like it is becoming its own network (CNN - just a joke) 
I am curious, where do you get your news from regularly? Or what’s your Plan B if you abandon CNN?
Right, he was admonishing his employees. He wasn’t saying that they were putting out fake news, he was saying that people were accusing them of putting out fake news, and that is their fault for not upholding the journalistic standards and integrity that they have built a reputation on having.
Know you’re not asking me, but I don’t like watching news. I don’t like being read to. I prefer to read it. Much of my news I get from around here, at least, people around here tend to link to interesting news articles. I also check out google news, which just aggregates news, and is pretty useful for local stuff too.
I haven’t had cable in almost a decade. If someone links to a video from one of the news sources, I’ll sometimes watch, but it’s not exactly convenient to do so.
The closest thing to news that I watch are the daily show and last week tonight, though I don’t watch them too regularly, and consider them to be more opinion and analysis than primary news sources.
ETA: it actually makes the seual harrasment domino game a bit less interesting, in a way, as the most I’ve heard of most of these people is when they get accused and fired. Don’t think I’ve ever seen a matt lauer show, and just about the only contemporary thing I knew about charlie rose before he was canned was a last week tonight segment that showed charlie rose sexually harassing co-hosts and guests.
Yes, it looks like had fallen off their homepage in about 24 hours. Other news sites had links to Franken stories on their home page for longer. That was what I presented as an example of biasing coverage through the “extent, spin and visibility of certain stories”. running coach’s counter-point was that “they have a different way of handling news than others.” I admit I don’t acquaint myself with MSNBC’s coverage enough to have a good sense of the accuracy of that claim, but it certainly sounds plausible.
I went to fox news’s website, they have several dozen headlines up on their main page. CNN has quite a number as well.
MSNBC has 9.
My go-tos are NPR when I’m in the car during commutes, and the Washington Post on my phone (which includes local news).
Ah, NPR, I used to listen.
But then my car radio broke, and I discovered I prefer to drive in silence.
I’m pretty sure MSNBC has 10, but I think the point is a good one.
Important difference, here: What the Washington Post quite rightly avoided was not a mistake. The false news story they resisted publishing was created by right-wing agents, who deliberately set out to trap them into making fools of themselves. What happened with ABC was just a mistake.
Wasn’t it?
I can’t claim any particular insight into what Brian Ross was thinking, whether there was a desire to deceive or simply a misunderstanding of the facts, but I think that’s the likeliest explanation. Perhaps the most interesting part of the ABC News leaked call to me was this:
How does that happen? Does Brian Ross rule the roost, Matt Lauer-style and can just break in with whatever story he wants to run with at any point? I would have guessed that there would be more controls in place than that, but perhaps not.
Apparently Brian Ross does not rule the roost, or he wouldn’t have been suspended.
He’s the one in front of the camera, speaking live. In that exact time and circumstance, he is the one in charge.
Once the cameras were off though, he found himself in hot water.
As to whether it was an honest mistake, a hopeful mistake, or a deliberate mistake on his part is a good question, and one that ABC’s higher ups should be investigating, the outcome of which may very well have relevance to his continued job prospects with the company.
The integrity of ABC as a whole, though, should not be affected, as they did in fact not only issue corrections, but punish the reporter who got it wrong.
This is what real news outlets do. They aren’t perfect, but when they mess up, they do let people know, not just the public, but their employees. It seems that this incident should actually increase the trust you have over their reporting, as opposed to other news sources who do not issue retractions, or if they do, keep them as small as possible, an do not take their employees off the air for making an incorrect statement.
We saw this with Dan Rather and Brian Williams too. A lifetime career, brought down by one incorrect report.
How many people get fired at breitbart or fox or infowars or limbaugh when they get a story wrong?
Including when Fox News not only gets a story wrong, but outright lies about it? A graph like this one doesn’t happen by accident. Someone had to go to a lot of extra work to make that graph look like that, and a bunch of other folks had to look at it before it went on the air, and write and look at the story which went with that graph.
Their retraction was fumbled too: slow, and started out as a mere “clarification”. Goldston discussed that on the call too.
I did give them credit for it in post #3: “… it is heartening to see that they seem to really want to get it right the next time.”
They get promoted or get jobs at the White House.