Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/01/01/fake-news-and-how-the-washington-post-rewrote-its-story-on-russian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/amp/

[Dakine10 5,452]

 Forbes thinks the content of their opinion pieces is so amazingly valuable that I should disable my adblocker just to look at them. Unfortunately they are mistaken. I'll have to sit this one out.

[yuna628 9,676]

3 minutes ago, Dakine10 said:

 Forbes thinks the content of their opinion pieces is so amazingly valuable that I should disable my adblocker just to look at them. Unfortunately they are mistaken. I'll have to sit this one out.

The Intercept had a piece running about the subject if you can look over there.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

12 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

The Intercept had a piece running about the subject if you can look over there.

Thank you for doing my heavy lifting 

[bcking 3,157]

I miss the days when a nightly news show and the morning paper was really the only ways to get news, and if they didn't have multiple sources confirming the report many news casters wouldn't move forward on certain information for fear of tarnishing their reputation as a reporter.

 

Now with the internet I feel there is this intense pressure to be first, or as quick as you can with releasing information. If other news sites are running something that is getting a large number of views, you need to jump on the bandwagon as well so you're click count doesn't drop below theirs. 

 

While it is nice how up to date we can all be with the internet, this is definitely a negative side effect. Had the Washington Post waited an hour or two more, or even just bothered to call the electric company for a statement first, they could have produced a more balanced report from the get go. I don't think they were trying to trick the public, I just think they were over eager and overly concerned with breaking the story before other people.

[jg121783 3,915]

I think it's interesting news outlets like CNN kept going with this story even after it was proven to be nonsense. This shows there is an intent to trick the public and this wasn't just a mistake. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

6 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

I think it's interesting news outlets like CNN kept going with this story even after it was proven to be nonsense. This shows there is an intent to trick the public and this wasn't just a mistake. 

I also think it is amazing that anyone takes CNN serious any longer 

[bcking 3,157]

14 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

I think it's interesting news outlets like CNN kept going with this story even after it was proven to be nonsense. This shows there is an intent to trick the public and this wasn't just a mistake. 

I have a higher burden to prove causality. You can say it suggests that, you can't say it actually shows it.

 

It could also still just show a desire to maintain views. True or not, a popular article that one news outlet isn't addressing can cost views which can effect revenue. Bad reporting yes, but not necessarily intentional deception.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Everyone's a legal expert these days, so I'll go with whatever you randos say rises to the level of "intent."

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Everyone's a legal expert these days, so I'll go with whatever you randos say rises to the level of "intent."

 

That's cool but I don't think we are talking legally here. If a news person has intent to give false information I don't think its a crime, so the legal definition of intent, which you have graciously given us your time and expertise to explain before does not apply, or so I would humbly assert. If not mistaken you explained to us the difference between Murder and Manslaughter was intent, and went on to explain intent to us, the details of which I don't recall. 

[bcking 3,157]

I'm not talking legally either. I'm just saying for me personally CNN running with the story suggests bad reporting for sure, but why they ran with it I don't think we can make any conclusions on. Could it have been to intentional mislead the public because they have an agenda and are funded and run by people who are extremely biased? Sure possibly. However, it could also be that they are just too obsessed with metrics and data and less worried about good reporting these days, like most news outlets.

 

I could easily see a situation in which they will run a story because other people are running it and it is gaining popularity, without independently verifying it. Media and News move to fast these days that running a false story hardly gets anyone in trouble, so the can move on very quickly. Again back when the news was a morning paper and a nightly show, I think it was a bigger deal if you devoted 20 minutes on your nightly show to something that turned out false. These days there is little harm in just throwing an article online. I don't think that's right, and I think it is very bad reporting, but I just think it's the way it is now.

Edited January 4, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Because every one lives in the now and has a 3 second attention span. Wag the dog. 

 

Like the big DNC scandal, roll with it until it blows out of the news cycle, blame it on the Russians and move on

 

To be fair and because I am the middle of the road man

 

Trumps grab a you know what story was the same way. Smile blow it off and wait for the talking heads to get the next story of the day

 

Remember Gary Hart and the chick on the boat. Pretty much ended his career and bid to be President. Now days it would be a 5 day news cycle, the would blame it on a failed marriage, poor judgement or the meaning of is, Is and it would be over. I think Bill Clinton changed everything

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

10 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

That's cool but I don't think we are talking legally here. If a news person has intent to give false information I don't think its a crime, so the legal definition of intent, which you have graciously given us your time and expertise to explain before does not apply, or so I would humbly assert. If not mistaken you explained to us the difference between Murder and Manslaughter was intent, and went on to explain intent to us, the details of which I don't recall. 

I am thinking about intent legally, because it can have civil repercussions. Intent is not limited to criminal matters.

 

Mostly I'm just being a jerk who has too much to do besides being snarky, and admittedly doing a drive by. I'm just irritated at the use of the word "intent" here because there is little circumstantially (and zippo directly) to imply that WaPo "intended" to do anything in the way of being misleading. They DID intend to publish it. They were sloppy and didn't rise to the level of journalistic standards I think everyone would like to see. But papers are allowed to correct themselves if they determine that they have made a mistake. That is in fact what they are supposed to do. Poorly reported news isn't necessarily "fake news," and it's incumbent upon us all to understand that.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Just now, elmcitymaven said:

I am thinking about intent legally, because it can have civil repercussions. Intent is not limited to criminal matters.

 

Mostly I'm just being a jerk who has too much to do besides being snarky, and admittedly doing a drive by. I'm just irritated at the use of the word "intent" here because there is little circumstantially (and zippo directly) to imply that WaPo "intended" to do anything in the way of being misleading. They DID intend to publish it. They were sloppy and didn't rise to the level of journalistic standards I think everyone would like to see. But papers are allowed to correct themselves if they determine that they have made a mistake. That is in fact what they are supposed to do. Poorly reported news isn't necessarily "fake news," and it's incumbent upon us all to understand that.

I know you think about everything legally and are a smart woman. Being snarky is really the only enjoyment we get from this place. 

Peace and legal on 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

7 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I know you think about everything legally and are a smart woman. Being snarky is really the only enjoyment we get from this place. 

Peace and legal on 

Thanks, dude. I've been suffering from bronchitis (now recovering, finally) since the 13th and I may be a little grumpier than usual.