Story on DNC staffer's murder dominated conservative media -- hours later it fell apart - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246478]They did a correction. The original story said the grid had been hacked. The editor's note on the top says: "An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid."[/QUOTE] I fail to see what your problem with that story is.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52246481]I fail to see what your problem with that story is.[/QUOTE] They either 1) used a source without a good grasp on the situation, 2) fabricated the source, or 3) fabricated the source's information.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246486]They either 1) used a source without a good grasp on the situation, 2) fabricated the source, or 3) fabricated the source's information.[/QUOTE] But a hacking definitely took place, so they didn't get it completely wrong

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52246491]But a hacking definitely took place, so they didn't get it completely wrong[/QUOTE] Since when is the standard of truth getting one part right?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246505]Since when is the standard of truth getting one part right?[/QUOTE] Hey man we have Donald Trump as president, I'll take what I can get.

Here's another fun one from the WaPo: Anonymous sources said that Deputy Attorney General of the DOJ, Rosenstein, threatened to resigned because of his treatment ([URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.a26c65f7a14f[/URL]) Rosenstein then came out and said that he never threatened to resign. ([URL]http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/deputy-ag-rosenstein-im-not-quitting-didnt-threaten-to-quit-over-comey-firing[/URL])

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246422]What did they do right after that came out? They, in primetime, said that he shouldn't have been invited on and that they made a mistake. Do I really need to list the times that other media groups have fabricated stories? (Off the top of my head, I can think of NBC editing the Zimmerman tapes to make him look racist.) [editline]18th May 2017[/editline] Or how about the WaPo having an anonymous source tell them that the Russians hacked into the electrical grid... and then it comes out that it never happened? ([url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.b78c960c661b&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-world%252Bnation[/url])[/QUOTE] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies#Photo_manipulation]I'm sure FOX would never do something like editing photos or footage[/url] [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC2DJR8IJLo]They've certainly never truncated or edited footage of people they disagree with to make them sound less reasonable or anything.[/url] [url=https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2009/05/05/report-time-and-again-fox-news-doctors-video-to/149834]Definitely no reason to believe they would ever try and smear someone[/url] [url=https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2009/04/04/hannity-truncated-obama-quote-to-claim-it-was-a/148908]by chopping up their words for the juiciest tidbits[/url] [url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/feb/26/fact-checks-behind-daily-shows-50-fox-news-lies/]After all, they have such a fantastic record for integrity and honest representation of facts[/url] :downs:

[QUOTE=Sitkero;52246536][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies#Photo_manipulation"]I'm sure FOX would never do something like editing photos or footage[/URL] [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC2DJR8IJLo"]They've certainly never truncated or edited footage of people they disagree with to make them sound less reasonable or anything.[/URL] [URL="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2009/05/05/report-time-and-again-fox-news-doctors-video-to/149834"]Definitely no reason to believe they would ever try and smear someone[/URL] [URL="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2009/04/04/hannity-truncated-obama-quote-to-claim-it-was-a/148908"]by chopping up their words for the juiciest tidbits[/URL] [URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/feb/26/fact-checks-behind-daily-shows-50-fox-news-lies/"]After all, they have such a fantastic record for integrity and honest representation of facts[/URL] :downs:[/QUOTE] Can you point to where I said they never did anything unethical? You're responding as if I'm here defending FOX as the best new source around (hint: I'm not). I think all the mass media does this kind of crap, and it's the reason I don't trust anonymous sources unless they're backed up with at least some hard, verifiable, evidence. The part I don't like is when people are just fine with media groups like the WaPo using only anonymous sources for essentially all their recent reporting, even though they've done their fair share of being totally wrong. As long as people agree with the story, then hey!, the sources must be right. [editline]18th May 2017[/editline] People keep bringing up Reuters, but Reuters is rarely the one to break all these stories based on purely anonymous sources. If anything, it goes to show that groups with more journalistic integrity don't do that kind of thing.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246538]Can you point to where I said they never did anything unethical? You're responding as if I'm here defending FOX as the best new source around (hint: I'm not). I think all the mass media does this kind of crap, and it's the reason I don't trust anonymous sources unless they're backed up with at least some hard, verifiable, evidence.[/QUOTE] I think my post works equally well in response to the idea that all the major media outlets are somehow the same and equally guilty of continuous and willful misrepresentation and dishonesty FOX is a propaganda outlet and treating them as being on the same level as the other media outlets in either honesty or dishonesty is like treating a housecat and a cougar as equals

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246422]What did they do right after that came out? They, in primetime, said that he shouldn't have been invited on and that they made a mistake. Do I really need to list the times that other media groups have fabricated stories? (Off the top of my head, I can think of NBC editing the Zimmerman tapes to make him look racist.) [editline]18th May 2017[/editline] Or how about the WaPo having an anonymous source tell them that the Russians hacked into the electrical grid... and then it comes out that it never happened? ([url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.b78c960c661b&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-world%252Bnation[/url])[/QUOTE] The key difference here is that there was a misunderstanding that was corrected (the malware was on a laptop in an attempt to penetrate the grid, rather than penetrating the grid itself) rather than a fabrication which they apologised for. They knew when they invited him on that he wasn't who he said he was, either that or they do 0 research into the people who come on. Also, in terms of the Rosenstein story, he would say he didn't if it did happen. It's the Trump administration, no one admits when they fuck up unless they're Trump, do so indirectly and only after someone has tried to cover for him. [editline]18th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52246538]Can you point to where I said they never did anything unethical? You're responding as if I'm here defending FOX as the best new source around (hint: I'm not). I think all the mass media does this kind of crap, and it's the reason I don't trust anonymous sources unless they're backed up with at least some hard, verifiable, evidence. The part I don't like is when people are just fine with media groups like the WaPo using only anonymous sources for essentially all their recent reporting, even though they've done their fair share of being totally wrong. As long as people agree with the story, then hey!, the sources must be right. [editline]18th May 2017[/editline] People keep bringing up Reuters, but Reuters is rarely the one to break all these stories based on purely anonymous sources. If anything, it goes to show that groups with more journalistic integrity don't do that kind of thing.[/QUOTE] Reuters is a tier above WaPo and the NYT, but Fox's credibility is stuck in a mineshaft.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246486]They either 1) used a source without a good grasp on the situation, 2) fabricated the source, or 3) fabricated the source's information.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sgman91;52246347]It's a pretty massive claim to say that they are making up sources. That would make them lower than something like Breitbart in journalistic integrity.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246538]People keep bringing up Reuters, but Reuters is rarely the one to break all these stories based on purely anonymous sources. If anything, it goes to show that groups with more journalistic integrity don't do that kind of thing.[/QUOTE] The reason people keep bringing up Reuters is because they are basically the gold standard for reliable and unbiased reporting. Even when they use anonymous sources they take great care to ensure it's accurate information. Fox, on the other hand, does nothing of the sort and as people have repeatedly pointed out to you have a history of skewing and misrepresenting things to push their agenda. Publishing such a blatantly incorrect story with the timing they did is highly suspect at the very [I]least[/I]. And with their track record there is no reason at all to give them the benefit of the doubt here. I really dunno why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp honestly.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52246538]Can you point to where I said they never did anything unethical? You're responding as if I'm here defending FOX as the best new source around (hint: I'm not). I think all the mass media does this kind of crap, and it's the reason I don't trust anonymous sources unless they're backed up with at least some hard, verifiable, evidence. The part I don't like is when people are just fine with media groups like the WaPo using only anonymous sources for essentially all their recent reporting, even though they've done their fair share of being totally wrong. As long as people agree with the story, then hey!, the sources must be right. [editline]18th May 2017[/editline] People keep bringing up Reuters, but Reuters is rarely the one to break all these stories based on purely anonymous sources. If anything, it goes to show that groups with more journalistic integrity don't do that kind of thing.[/QUOTE] Anonymous sources, why those sources are anonymous, how credibility works, and why some outlets have higher credibility than others, have been explained dozens of times in all of these god damn threads but hey, why not, let's do it [I]again[/I] [I]This is how the media works[/I], [url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/27/anonymous-sources-can-be-vital-but-white-house-gaggle-flap-is-overblown.html]anonymous sources are a vital component of journalism. Even FOX can acknowledge that.[/url] Anonymity is especially important for the kind of investigative journalism being done on the affairs of the current administration. It's no secret that Trump harbors a deeply vindictive attitude towards any kind of even remotely negative press, which is well showcased by his utter disdain for the American news media It's not just people agreeing with the sources that makes the sources right, it's the fact that Reuters and the Washington post are news agencies both well over a century old who have spent decades upon decades cultivating a trustworthy reputation, they have spent more than a century building credibility They have a proven track record. They are more likely to be telling the truth than not. [I]Obviously[/I] you should take anonymous sources with a grain of salt, you should take [I]everything[/I] with a grain of salt, but there's a huge difference between taking something with a grain of salt and arbitrary skepticism FOX news, on the other hand, has only existed since 1996, and they do [I]not[/I] have a proven track record of factual reporting. Their two decades of existence have been primarily spent as a propaganda machine for Rupert Murdoch. Refer back to my post made of links, they're known to vary between simply distorting the truth and outright lying. They're constantly misrepresenting people and events that do not mesh easily with their network's narrative, and propaganda from FOX is nothing new. They're given significantly less latitude when it comes to something like anonymous sources because [I]they are not trustworthy[/I], they do not have credibility, and they have repeatedly demonstrated this over the last two decades Once again, housecats and cougars

[url=http://www.fox5dc.com/news/255305734-story]Update on the whole seth rich thing[/url] [QUOTE]Since Rod Wheeler backtracked Tuesday, FOX 5 DC attempted incessantly to communicate with him, but he didn't return calls or emails. On Wednesday, just before our newscast, Wheeler responded to our requests via a telephone conversation, where he now backtracks his position and Wheeler characterizes his on-the-record and on-camera statements as "miscommunication." When asked if Wheeler is still working for Seth Rich's family, Wheeler told FOX 5 DC the contract still stands-- ties have not been severed. We reached out once again to the Rich family, and through a spokesperson the Rich family tells FOX 5 DC, "The family has relayed their deep disappointment with Rod Wheeler's conduct over the last 48 hours, and is exploring legal avenues to the family."[/QUOTE]