No, you wouldn’t, and you’ve proved it over and over in these threads - you don’t even read the articles you cite (which most often contradict the point you cited it for). You skim news and are easily duped.
I wouldn’t consider it self-corrected. If the competing news media has to examine it and make a huge issue out of your deception so you retract… that’s not self-corrected.
That’s morally akin to a thief taking something, getting caught and returning it because he was caught. Is he not a thief because he returned the goods?
“Only after other news outlets noted NBC’s malice — the New York Post, on April 5, described NBC’s doctored audio as “pretty damming evidence of willful misconduct by NBC News” and noted it could incite racial violence — did NBC finally issue a (sort of) apology to its viewers and terminate two employees. Incredibly, however, the network claimed the doctored audio was simply a “mistake.” To this day, NBC has never truly apologized to America for its clear wrongdoing, much less to George Zimmerman.”
I think you are arguing facts not in evidence. Specifically, you seem to assume that the producer’s bosses knew what she had done, and only fired her/issued a correction when they were exposed. Is this a fact; ie, is there evidence that this is what transpired?
NBC only apologized because they were caught
Let me guess, when the Washington post reported the Russians hacked a power grid in Vermont, it’s not fake news because they added an editors note
This isn’t fake news at all - it’s a story that had a piece wrong, which they corrected. That’s called journalism.
1 Like
They literally just made it up
There’s no such thing as fake news when it comes to bashing Trump
Walter Duranty was a NYT reporter from the 30s who wrote a series of reports on the Soviet Union where he denied the atrocities committed by Stalin. He even won a pulitzer prize for it
Is this fake news?
This is how it works. Define fake news extremely narrowly so little nothing meets the criteria and now there is no fake news.
Just grossly wrong or misleading news but certainly not fake
So a culture with no vetting is okay? I’m sure it was one rogue producer. That was a pretty big story at the time.
I don’t particularly care that there’s bias and outright distortions and lies in media. But to deny that it happens… The right leaning guys do it too.
That’s why I like The Week magazine so much. They have a section for the largest stories of the week:
What happened: facts
What the editorials said: what the right and left opinionistas think.
I honestly prefer media with an honest bias. If you read the Huff Post or Vox you know you are getting the far left take. If you read National Review you’re getting the right take. It’s better than some faux attempt at neutrality.
2 Likes
I would posit that running unsubstantiated items on front page or as lead stories (IOW - supposedly news, not editorial) is aimed at moving a narrative.
This smacks as pushing what we are screaming as fake news these days. If Star and National Inquirer did this and were branded as rags in the past, then we should hold the NBCs, Wapos, and Fox News to the same standard.
Do l believe branding all opposition as fake news, to be asinine and inflammatory?
Oh, yeah.
How do you know there’s no vetting? Again, I have to ask if you have any facts to back up your claims.
So one producer edited the tapes in a dishonest fashion. We know this for a fact.
The edited recording was repeated across multiple nationwide broadcasts on multiple different days. The N.R. article I posted lists the dates and times. They also claimed there were racial epithets on more than one occasion. When Zimmerman used zero epithets, unless you count “asshole” and “punk” as epithets.
That means there are 2 possibilities:
- Someone else at NBC reviewed the original recording and was okay with the distortion and lies.
- Nobody else at NBC reviewed them. No vetting.
I was giving NBC the benefit of the doubt with the “no vetting” comment.
Edit autocorrect
Granted. Why the tape was dishonestly edited we do not know, however. So to claim the dishonest editing is evidence of liberal bias is to get out over our skis.
There’s nothing suspicious/sinister about this. The (misleadingly edited) tape was used until the error was identified.
Or 3. NBC trusts its producers to do the right thing–that is, the producer is ‘the vetting process.’ After all, the buck has to stop somewhere.
Well 2=3 in this case in regard to two-part vetting. I’d think NBC would want to introduce vetting now. Otherwise a zealous producer can expose them to millions in potential slander/libel losses.
Funny you’d allude to the phrase “buck stops here”. By Truman logic this is the CEO’s responsibility.
I’d argue that the producer that did the editing did so thinking that was acceptable. That’s the culture at NBC. Brian Williams for example.
I have no idea if NBC made any internal adjustments to how segments are produced, but I wouldn’t be surprised if safeguards had been implemented.
I think Truman was referring to the presidency specifically, not organizations in general. While the head of NBC is of course responsible in a general sense for everything the network does, I don’t think anyone expects him/her to be personally responsible for vetting every news story.
In that regard, I suppose you could make an argument that NBC had (has?) a culture of irresponsible oversensationalization (the only connection I see between what happened in the Zimmerman case and the Williams case). But I don’t see how one can say Zimmerman case + Williams case = liberal bias.
Well Raj’s title for the thread was “How trustworthy is the MSM” So we have two examples of members of NBC lying. Painting Zimmerman as a racist using epithets sells better with libs than painting him as an overzealous wannabe cop.
I guess the more pertinent line of questioning is what can you trust the MSM to do? Make profits? Sure.
I’m sure we could find thousands of examples of lies and distortions with all of the networks. Some include fox as MSM now. You could argue they have a culture of sexual harassment over there.
I’m still confused at the purpose of this thread though. News is entertainment business. You play to your crowd.
Serious question.
And Fox and other Conservative Media have not?
Maybe we’ve jumped ahead.
Define “fake news”