[quote]conner wrote:
Arc_1mpuls3 wrote:
Much like a good chunk of media today is more concerned with getting viewers/readers than they are getting everything 100% correct. To further my point, web articles aren’t exactly held to the same standards that a major news channel may be (I don’t know I am not experienced in the field) but I can guarantee that television is restricted to a greater degree than the internet.
You know, as I am sure you do, not everything written is true.
This is true. Although, the article was one by the Associated Press, and if I remember my journalism class correctly, AP is involved in about 1,500 newspapers and over triple that in radio/television stations in the U.S. alone. This is by no means some obscure publication no one knows of.
In fact, a little snippet from their Statement of News Values and Principles:
“Nothing in our news report - words, photos, graphics, sound or video - may be fabricated.”
Of course, they could always just be lying about that, too.
As for correcting misinformation:
[i]"Staffers must notify supervisory editors as soon as possible of errors or potential errors, whether in their work or that of a colleague. Every effort should be made to contact the staffer and his or her supervisor before a correction is moved.
When we’re wrong, we must say so as soon as possible. When we make a correction in the current cycle, we point out the error and its fix in the editor’s note. A correction must always be labeled a correction in the editor’s note. We do not use euphemisms such as “recasts,” “fixes,” “clarifies” or “changes” when correcting a factual error.
…
For corrections on live, online stories, we overwrite the previous version. We send separate corrective stories online as warranted."[/i]
The story has yet to be altered for corrections. This story is probably all over the place- more so out where it’s local and relevant. I would think the principal or his lawyer or someone would have contacted the AP to correct such those statements had they been untrue, or gotten in touch with a different news publication had AP refused to correct their article.
Now, if you all still insist on calling them sensationalist liars, well I just don’t know what to say. I guess there really isn’t anything I can say (not that there was in the first place, of course).
This is a rather huge source of news, and as far as I know it doesn’t have the ridiculous reputation that Fox News has (could be wrong here, I don’t follow it that closely).
As for, “do ya real1y think they would print a notis sayin they will lie to sell paperz? are u retarded lol 4realz?”
Well, I have this here metal bucket…
Realistically, at this point, all we can do is wait for it to play out and see what the principal really meant/said. I, for one, know what I’m placing my money on.[/quote]
Yo Conner,
Isn’t the A.P. reliant on what info the government or source gives them as well as their status as a Corporation?
I assume they are since they consistently request further information from the government based on the Freedom of information Act. Sometimes they are given further information, sometimes they are not. Meet King Gearge Bush, he is your boy not mine. Your cohort, your gay lover, Gearge.
At any rate, the point here is that believing what you see in one mass media news reel as fact is an error of judgement.
You were owned by a pre-historic Ogre in this discussion.
Now if you want me to believe you went from 15" arms to 20" arms in one year with your daddy’s 1960 Navy training method, well then I just might have to stalk you and beat you Rodney King style.
Understand I think highly of you. Your posts are normally intelligent and well thought out, but to give so much credit to any news source is an eror.