Fake News

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I can't speak to what CNN writes, since I do not read any of it.

However, they (Der Spiegal) weren't caught doing anything. A liar was caught, and then punished. This is how real news operates.

Retractions are a part of responsible journalism. Opinion blogging is a waste of bandwidth.

So you believe that Der Spiegal, for YEARS, was publishing his lying propaganda and just forgot to fact check or edit anything he submitted to them? They dindu nuffin, right? LOL

I believe that Der Spiegal published a journalist with a good record in good faith who started lying to maintain an edge. I feel like this is more reasonable than beliving in an anti Trump conspiracy involving publishing disreputable journalists who would eventually become Trump critics before Trump was even nominated.

But I am less inclined to the manichean than you.

[Speaker to Animals]

I can't speak to what CNN writes, since I do not read any of it.

However, they (Der Spiegal) weren't caught doing anything. A liar was caught, and then punished. This is how real news operates.

Retractions are a part of responsible journalism. Opinion blogging is a waste of bandwidth.

So you believe that Der Spiegal, for YEARS, was publishing his lying propaganda and just forgot to fact check or edit anything he submitted to them? They dindu nuffin, right? LOL

I believe that Der Spiegal published a journalist with a good record in good faith who started lying to maintain an edge. I feel like this is more reasonable than beliving in an anti Trump conspiracy involving publishing disreputable journalists who would eventually become Trump critics before Trump was even nominated.

But I am less inclined to the manichean than you.

Makes sense. I guess fact-checking and editing is not for modern "journalism" after all. It's not deliberate. They just don't fact check anything except people's opinions they don't like (and then they lie about the facts), but whatever.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

So you believe that Der Spiegal, for YEARS, was publishing his lying propaganda and just forgot to fact check or edit anything he submitted to them? They dindu nuffin, right? LOL

I believe that Der Spiegal published a journalist with a good record in good faith who started lying to maintain an edge. I feel like this is more reasonable than beliving in an anti Trump conspiracy involving publishing disreputable journalists who would eventually become Trump critics before Trump was even nominated.

But I am less inclined to the manichean than you.

Makes sense. I guess fact-checking and editing is not for modern "journalism" after all. It's not deliberate. They just don't fact check anything except people's opinions they don't like (and then they lie about the facts), but whatever.

Well, he got caught, and was punished, so it is a part of modern journalism, which was my point to begin with.
At least we agree I was right from the start, your question begging conspiracy theory nonsense asside, of course.

[Speaker to Animals]

I believe that Der Spiegal published a journalist with a good record in good faith who started lying to maintain an edge. I feel like this is more reasonable than beliving in an anti Trump conspiracy involving publishing disreputable journalists who would eventually become Trump critics before Trump was even nominated.

But I am less inclined to the manichean than you.

Makes sense. I guess fact-checking and editing is not for modern "journalism" after all. It's not deliberate. They just don't fact check anything except people's opinions they don't like (and then they lie about the facts), but whatever.

Well, he got caught, and was punished, so it is a part of modern journalism, which was my point to begin with.
At least we agree I was right from the start, your question begging conspiracy theory nonsense asside, of course.

It would be more accurate to state that he got caught so many times, and people made such a stink about it, that Der Spiegal had to respond, and their response was to throw the guy under the bus rather than acknowledge that: (1) they were either complicit in the lying (passively or actively), or (2) they are not a legitimate journalism, since they perform zero fact-checking on their articles and do not actually have competent editors who care about publishing the truth.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

"More accurate" according to... what? The opinion blog you like?

[Speaker to Animals]

"More accurate" according to... what? The opinion blog you like?

More accurate according to rational thought.

Surely you see the problem? Journalism is based upon certain principles, fact-checking and multiple sources being one; editors rooting out dishonesty and mistakes being another. Der Spiegal claims to be a serious journalistic enterprise. Yet they were publishing this trash for years and years. Either they did so deliberately or they failed to perform the most basic journalistic tasks, such as fact-checking and checking sources. Which is it?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

"More accurate" according to... what? The opinion blog you like?

More accurate according to rational thought.

Surely you see the problem? Journalism is based upon certain principles, fact-checking and multiple sources being one; editors rooting out dishonesty and mistakes being another. Der Spiegal claims to be a serious journalistic enterprise. Yet they were publishing this trash for years and years. Either they did so deliberately or they failed to perform the most basic journalistic tasks, such as fact-checking and checking sources. Which is it?

As I said, retractions are a part of responsible journalism. Journalists have (for many reasons) failed their readers and fooled their editors before, and will again, and responsible news organs will continue to find them out and disavow them.
And, like clockwork, you will respond with faulty generalization fallacies every time, I expect.

[PartyOf5]

See, with real news organs, there is punishment when a journalist is caught lying, and they are stripped of awards.

With a blog, like Breitbart for instance, opinion is given the imprimatur of information, and there is no difference between reporting and opining, and no repercussions for doing either poorly.

What sort of repercussions should there be for poor opining? How do you determine if it is poor?

Loss of respect.
It is usually poor. Ask me how to determine if it ain't.

Monty: Breitbart faces no repercussions for their poor opinions.
Monty's definition of repercussions: Loss of respect.
Breitbart has lost (or maybe never had) Monty's respect yet says they have never faced it.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

What sort of repercussions should there be for poor opining? How do you determine if it is poor?

Loss of respect.
It is usually poor. Ask me how to determine if it ain't.

Monty: Breitbart faces no repercussions for their poor opinions.
Monty's definition of repercussions: Loss of respect.
Breitbart has lost (or maybe never had) Monty's respect yet says they have never faced it.

Is that supposed to be some sort of 'gotcha?' Because, it is deeply confused.

I guess I could have been more elaborate and said "loss of respect, or failure to earn respect," so, you got me, I guess. 'Tis true, no one at Breitbart was ever able to earn my respect the way many op-ed writers at National Review, or Reason, or WSJ have. Congratulations, you are very clever.

Also, not Monte.

[Montegriffo]

Loss of respect.
It is usually poor. Ask me how to determine if it ain't.

Monty: Breitbart faces no repercussions for their poor opinions.
Monty's definition of repercussions: Loss of respect.
Breitbart has lost (or maybe never had) Monty's respect yet says they have never faced it.

Is that supposed to be some sort of 'gotcha?' Because, it is deeply confused.

I guess I could have been more elaborate and said "loss of respect, or failure to earn respect," so, you got me, I guess. 'Tis true, no one at Breitbart was ever able to earn my respect the way many op-ed writers at National Review, or Reason, or WSJ have. Congratulations, you are very clever.

Also, not Monte.

I think you meant alas not Monte.