Three CNN journalists resign after Russia-related article retracted

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

I listen to all sides, make my own observations, then form my own opinion, thanks.

You're defending the impartiality of CNN? That simply means you agree with its agenda. Perhaps you don't realise that there is barely any news organisation that does not press its own political or social agenda - in many cases that's why they exist. The BBC are just as bad.

Did you see the articles showing how those video cuts were used to distort the truth?  I'm not talking about the rebuttals from CNN.  Plenty out there.  The guy who did it is a nutter.  Sadly, he can help people form (bad) opinions.

 

No news organization is impartial.  None.  But MSM sites are pretty good about vetting their articles.  Sites like the one you posted a link to, aren't.  That's pure commentary by one single person.  And far from a news organization. 

 

Even Fox News gets caught with fake news.  I wonder if they fired anybody because of this? LOL

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/07/world/europe/anatomy-of-fake-news-russian-propaganda.html

Quote

How Russian Propaganda Spread From a Parody Website to Fox News

 

[Thakkar]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

I listen to all sides, make my own observations, then form my own opinion, thanks.

You're defending the impartiality of CNN? That simply means you agree with its agenda. Perhaps you don't realise that there is barely any news organisation that does not press its own political or social agenda - in many cases that's why they exist. The BBC are just as bad.

 

"Listening to all sides" sounds reasonable till you realize what it really means when people like you* say it. 

 

If I'm skeptical about my doctor's diagnosis, it's reasonable for me to seek a second opinion from another doctor. It's not reasonable for me to seek out a shaman and take with any seriousness his opinion of my health condition. 

 

Granted, journalism is not like medicine. Facts can be cherry-picked, emphasis can be added or subtracted so it's important to stay alert to distortions. 

 

Assessing reliability is hard work. It's much easier to condemn everyone and just allow snake oil salesmen like Alex Jones or Donald Trump to directly feed us their opinions as fact. Like religious cults, these conmen begin by getting us to mistrust those around us, to mistrust institutions and hoity-toity academics. A sure sign is when they start putting air quotes around words like "educated" and "expert"—something Alex Jones does a lot of; just watch how many times he says "so-called".

 

The first step to getting one's facts straight is to mistrust those who tell you to mistrust everyone else.

 

T 

 

*i.e., people who are apparently buying what Paul Joseph Watson is selling.

 

[Scott]

A post from an unapproved source has been reported and removed.  

[ddavidovsky]

8 hours ago, Thakkar said:

 

"Listening to all sides" sounds reasonable till you realize what it really means when people like you* say it. 

 

If I'm skeptical about my doctor's diagnosis, it's reasonable for me to seek a second opinion from another doctor. It's not reasonable for me to seek out a shaman and take with any seriousness his opinion of my health condition. 

 

Granted, journalism is not like medicine. Facts can be cherry-picked, emphasis can be added or subtracted so it's important to stay alert to distortions. 

 

Assessing reliability is hard work. It's much easier to condemn everyone and just allow snake oil salesmen like Alex Jones or Donald Trump to directly feed us their opinions as fact. Like religious cults, these conmen begin by getting us to mistrust those around us, to mistrust institutions and hoity-toity academics. A sure sign is when they start putting air quotes around words like "educated" and "expert"—something Alex Jones does a lot of; just watch how many times he says "so-called".

 

The first step to getting one's facts straight is to mistrust those who tell you to mistrust everyone else.

 

T 

 

*i.e., people who are apparently buying what Paul Joseph Watson is selling.

 

I've no idea why you're addressing all those points at me.  I am merely pointing out this general truism: news organisations create news according to their needs, not ours.

 

I have no agenda relating to Donald Trump. I don't take part in politics. I have never voted in my life. I prefer to observe the rabble from my cloud. You clearly have an anti-Trump agenda. Good luck with that, but it's no good lecturing me from a position of bias. I'm immune.

[craigt3365]

5 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

I've no idea why you're addressing all those points at me.  I am merely pointing out this general truism: news organisations create news according to their needs, not ours.

 

I have no agenda relating to Donald Trump. I don't take part in politics. I have never voted in my life. I prefer to observe the rabble from my cloud. You clearly have an anti-Trump agenda. Good luck with that, but it's no good lecturing me from a position of bias. I'm immune.

He's addressing those points at you because you're making your opinions based on terrible media sites.  Ones that publish fake news.  Which is done according to their needs.  Cater to people who like that sort of stuff so they'll click and then they'll make money. 

 

You don't have to have an anti-Trump agenda to not like what he's doing.  And you do have a position of bias.  Most of your posts are quite critical of the US.  But like you say, nobody will change your mind.

[Thakkar]

6 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

I've no idea why you're addressing all those points at me.  I am merely pointing out this general truism: news organisations create news according to their needs, not ours.

 

I have no agenda relating to Donald Trump. I don't take part in politics. I have never voted in my life. I prefer to observe the rabble from my cloud. You clearly have an anti-Trump agenda. Good luck with that, but it's no good lecturing me from a position of bias. I'm immune.

Your (or my) say-so doesn't make something a truism. Most mainstream news organizations do not "create news" they report it. Different news organizations may report it with varying degrees of bias that arise for various reasons: in some cases nefarious, in some cases no more nefarious than the need for ratings, and in many other cases not really nefarious at all.

 

If you have an opinion on things, especially things as politically pertinent as the role of news organizations and share those opinions publicly, then you are partaking in politics.

 

Saying I have an "anti-Trump agenda" makes my having a negative opinion of Trump sound somehow sinister. It isn't. It is simply an opinion formed after having watched his speeches and actions over a period of several years, ever since he came on my radar with his Birther comments. Just as those very same speeches and actions have given others, of a different bend, a positive opinion of the man.

 

Your immunity is safe; I have no intention of influencing, let alone lecturing, you—just publicly correcting your public comments when I think they are wrong.

 

I will end here with an *evil laugh* and a *dramatically flourish flip* of my imaginary cape to indicate I am a Soros-paid Main Stream Media hack working to bolster The Deep State.

 

T

 

[Ahab]

I think the problem is that "most" mainstream news agencies are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being extremely biased in a leftist direction. Stories like this about CNN putting out a totally false news story does nothing to reduce this perception. Donald Trump is his own greatest threat, and the media by publishing completely false stories for ratings is also their own greatest enemy.

[Ahab]

6 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

I've no idea why you're addressing all those points at me.  I am merely pointing out this general truism: news organisations create news according to their needs, not ours.

 

I have no agenda relating to Donald Trump. I don't take part in politics. I have never voted in my life. I prefer to observe the rabble from my cloud. You clearly have an anti-Trump agenda. Good luck with that, but it's no good lecturing me from a position of bias. I'm immune.

By not voting ever in your life you have in a way participated in politics. You also deserve whatever government was elected in your home country.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

I think the problem is that "most" mainstream news agencies are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being extremely biased in a leftist direction. Stories like this about CNN putting out a totally false news story does nothing to reduce this perception. Donald Trump is his own greatest threat, and the media by publishing completely false stories for ratings is also their own greatest enemy.

We're talking about ONE story out of hundreds of thousands they produce.  Yes, there have been a few more at CNN, but nothing like the fake news that's propagated by fringe and non MSM websites.  These are the ones doing the damage, sadly, as many read them and actually believe them.

 

Most of what Trump claims as FAKE news, are just pieces that don't align with his thoughts.  Trump is the king of FAKE news. LOL.  And he's doing a terrible disservice to us by disparaging the media.  Incorrectly.

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

We're talking about ONE story out of hundreds of thousands they produce.  Yes, there have been a few more at CNN, but nothing like the fake news that's propagated by fringe and non MSM websites.  These are the ones doing the damage, sadly, as many read them and actually believe them.

 

Most of what Trump claims as FAKE news, are just pieces that don't align with his thoughts.  Trump is the king of FAKE news. LOL.  And he's doing a terrible disservice to us by disparaging the media.  Incorrectly.

I like CNN and watch it daily but there political coverage is biased and, many times, nonsense and if you can't see that well... I don't know what to say. This 'Russia thing' is almost laughable and they have been caught out and even had to ask for 3 resignations. Trump comes out with nonsense but so does CNN.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

We're talking about ONE story out of hundreds of thousands they produce.  Yes, there have been a few more at CNN, but nothing like the fake news that's propagated by fringe and non MSM websites.  These are the ones doing the damage, sadly, as many read them and actually believe them.

 

Most of what Trump claims as FAKE news, are just pieces that don't align with his thoughts.  Trump is the king of FAKE news. LOL.  And he's doing a terrible disservice to us by disparaging the media.  Incorrectly.

That may be true, but stuff like the CNN fake news only feeds the crazy fringe conspiracy theory's. It is not helpful when trust in the press is already at an all time low.

[hound]

On 6/27/2017 at 10:11 AM, boomerangutang said:

3 people resigned?  That sounds draconian.  

 

Was the article factually wrong?  .....to what degree?    Could not a retraction have sufficed?   

 

Methinks there is more to this story.  Perhaps the implicated person (Scaramucci) had threatened a mega lawsuit.    That's usually how despots get their way in that realm.  Both Thaksin and Trump have threatened and instigated hundreds of frivolous lawsuits - to try and shut people up from speaking truths.   It's an ugly trend.

Yes the article was factually wrong.  That's why they resigned.  Probably told resign or be fired.  Why paint the victim of false reporting as a despot when you have nothing to back this up?

[JHolmesJr]

Why am I not surprised to see this headline?

 

Another liberal tool being misused to push a spurious agenda?

[ddavidovsky]

3 hours ago, Thakkar said:

Your (or my) say-so doesn't make something a truism. Most mainstream news organizations do not "create news" they report it. Different news organizations may report it with varying degrees of bias that arise for various reasons: in some cases nefarious, in some cases no more nefarious than the need for ratings, and in many other cases not really nefarious at all.

 

If you have an opinion on things, especially things as politically pertinent as the role of news organizations and share those opinions publicly, then you are partaking in politics.

 

Saying I have an "anti-Trump agenda" makes my having a negative opinion of Trump sound somehow sinister. It isn't. It is simply an opinion formed after having watched his speeches and actions over a period of several years, ever since he came on my radar with his Birther comments. Just as those very same speeches and actions have given others, of a different bend, a positive opinion of the man.

 

Your immunity is safe; I have no intention of influencing, let alone lecturing, you—just publicly correcting your public comments when I think they are wrong.

 

I will end here with an *evil laugh* and a *dramatically flourish flip* of my imaginary cape to indicate I am a Soros-paid Main Stream Media hack working to bolster The Deep State.

 

T

 

I can only call that attitude naive. I actually wrote the line: "news organisations create news according to their needs, not ours" in 2010, and just happened to come across it recently. It's not a new issue, and it's all down to human nature. Everyone knows that bias exists in the way news is selected and presented. Only the news organisations themselves, and those who support their position - such as you and CNN - don't realise it's happening. It's Piagettian egocentricity: the assumption that your perspective is the objective truth and failure to see all other perspectives.

 

I didn't mean I have no political convictions. I have plenty. I meant I don't participate in support for one political party or another. That's because my own convictions are partly on the left, partly on the right, partly totally unique (eg, I advocate economic contraction and austerity for all, and depopulation). I judge every issue objectively. It would be silly to align myself with one party to the point that I invest my personal identity in it, which is what people usually do.

 

Really, with a bit of objectivity you'll see much better how all news organisations skew the presentation of the news towards the political convictions of those who run it.

 

 

[Thakkar]

6 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

I can only call that attitude naive. I actually wrote the line: "news organisations create news according to their needs, not ours" in 2010, and just happened to come across it recently. It's not a new issue, and it's all down to human nature. Everyone knows that bias exists in the way news is selected and presented. Only the news organisations themselves, and those who support their position - such as you and CNN - don't realise it's happening. It's Piagettian egocentricity: the assumption that your perspective is the objective truth and failure to see all other perspectives.

 

I didn't mean I have no political convictions. I have plenty. I meant I don't participate in support for one political party or another. That's because my own convictions are partly on the left, partly on the right, partly totally unique (eg, I advocate economic contraction and austerity for all, and depopulation). I judge every issue objectively. It would be silly to align myself with one party to the point that I invest my personal identity in it, which is what people usually do.

 

Really, with a bit of objectivity you'll see much better how all news organisations skew the presentation of the news towards the political convictions of those who run it.

 

 

 

 

While I reject some your notions above (I'll get to that), it seems we aren't as far apart as I'd first suspected. Your posting of the Paul Joseph Watson video threw me off and I, subconsciously at least, treated you as another Alex Jones Loony. 

 

Perhaps that was uncalled for.

 

Like you, I am not an ideologue. I prefer to go with what works, or is likely to work. On issues like healthcare and taxation, I lean left (Universal healthcare, progressive taxation, tax on investment income). On trade, I lean Right with the caveat that there should be independent Trade unions and livable minimum wage. More open immigration is a Right Wing notion I support but which American Republican politicians pretend to oppose in order to harness a spectrum of votes ranging from white working class to racists. This is one reason, despite all the rhetoric, immigration reform never gets done.

 

In short, my stance on any given issue lands wherever data and good arguments take me. I suspect you are not that different.

 

And when the facts change, or I discover more compelling facts/arguments, I change my opinion. I have found again and again however, that the least informed people have the strongest, most intransigent opinions.

 

Nobody's saying biases don't exist. Bias is unavoidable because it's human nature. Real journalists learn too check their bias as much as possible, but it can't be completely erased. News consumers are also biased. That's why I gave the example of how Trump's speeches and actions gave me a negative impression of him, while those same speeches and actions gave others of a different bent a positive impression of him. Just as good journalists learn to be aware of their own biases, so must we as news consumers, if we want to consume conscientiously.

 

It's healthy to be skeptical, but ultimate self-defeating to be constantly paranoid and suspicious of all journalists of all organizations all the time. For a healthy, functioning society, we have to agree on certain facts—once the data is in and opposing explanations hashed out. For example, without breaching the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution, responsible gun control works to reduce gun death. We know this because it has worked everywhere it's been tried. We know this because places with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths and less crime. The data is in. It's irrefutable. Yet the arguments continue ad nauseam because normal discourse is broken, and broken by design by the very people who profit from gun sales.

 

As others have said, not voting is also a kind of voting; there's no escaping politics. Whether one votes or not, it's best to stay engaged in local, national and international politics as best one can.

 

A necessary step towards that is to first know what's going on. News is bound to be skewed, but not necessarily for nefarious purposes. Our own news consumption is also bound to be skewed, because we are human, because we self-select what we read, because we let ideology get in the way. The solution is to keep an open mind and read with healthy skepticism rather than resigned cynicism. 

 

Cheers

 

T

 

[craigt3365]

20 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

I like CNN and watch it daily but there political coverage is biased and, many times, nonsense and if you can't see that well... I don't know what to say. This 'Russia thing' is almost laughable and they have been caught out and even had to ask for 3 resignations. Trump comes out with nonsense but so does CNN.

I tend not to read the opinion pieces, just focus on the news and facts uncovered.  Not their description of them.  Again, we're talking about one instance among thousands of reports.  Much ado about nothing.  And luckily, CNN responded properly.  A good thing to do.

 

What's your favorite news source?

[craigt3365]

19 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Why am I not surprised to see this headline?

 

Another liberal tool being misused to push a spurious agenda?

Nice conspiracy theory. LOL

[Thakkar]

On 7/1/2017 at 9:52 AM, Ahab said:

That may be true, but stuff like the CNN fake news only feeds the crazy fringe conspiracy theory's. It is not helpful when trust in the press is already at an all time low.

 

Yes, it's unfortunate and gives ammunition to the conspiracy hawkers. But to be frank, those folks don't need a molehill to make a mountain out of; they can do it out of thin air. remember Pizaagate?