• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Breitbart maintain standard of journalism.

Manc Skipper

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
41,561
Reaction score
31,166
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I saw something about this earlier today. Their idea of "correcting" the story certainly doesn't work for those who might not read the entire article. I guaran-goddamn-tee you that we see the Whitewater talking point on this forum during Lynch's confirmation hearings.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Shouldn't their admission of being completely wrong be given equal prominence?

Obama's Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch Represented Clintons During Whitewater (Corrected)

You have to read to the end to find the headline's a lie. (If you didn't already know) If you had the attention span of a goldfish, you could think it was true.
Click to expand...

Equal prominence to what, or where? I'm not sure what you are asking. As for the correction, does the title not imply that a correction was made? Or are you thinking the piece should have been deleted from the site?
 
v8ixpwk9yecmaekralez.jpg
 
Manc Skipper said:
Shouldn't their admission of being completely wrong be given equal prominence?
Click to expand...

Yes. Breitbart.com lets this kind of thing happen far too often. The correction belongs at the beginning, so that people don't read very far before finding out that the premise of the story included in the title doesn't hold up.
 
lizzie said:
Equal prominence to what, or where? I'm not sure what you are asking. As for the correction, does the title not imply that a correction was made? Or are you thinking the piece should have been deleted from the site?
Click to expand...

Let me borrow some of Kobie's words.

Their idea of "correcting" the story certainly doesn't work for those who might not read the entire headline of the article.
 
It's really pretty simple... They should have not only removed the headline, but removed the original story, printed a full retraction, and wrote their updated story about the real woman as a completely different piece.

That is shabby, hack-ish political journalism that in my book is not only inexcuseable, but is a disgrace to the memory of Andrew Breitbart.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Shouldn't their admission of being completely wrong be given equal prominence?

Obama's Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch Represented Clintons During Whitewater (Corrected)

You have to read to the end to find the headline's a lie. (If you didn't already know) If you had the attention span of a goldfish, you could think it was true.
Click to expand...

Loretta Lynch: A Qualified--But Political--Choice
Your link didn't work for me. So what's the issue? What did they do that no one else does?
 
Grim17 said:
It's really pretty simple... They should have not only removed the headline, but removed the original story, printed a full retraction, and wrote their updated story about the real woman as a completely different piece.

That is shabby, hack-ish political journalism that in my book is not only inexcuseable, but is a disgrace to the memory of Andrew Breitbart.
Click to expand...

Wow. I am actually glad to see you say this.
 
pbrauer said:
Breitbart's Attack On Obama Attorney General Nominee Goes After The Wrong Loretta Lynch | Blog | Media Matters for America

:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

This is certainly not to excuse Breitbart.com (Let us studiously avoid the tu quoque fallacy, yes?), but shoddy journalism (and journalism ethics) is nearly as common as journalists.

Try out this false headline from (nonpartisan!) PolitiFact. It's plainly false, and the story takes liberties with the survey results, but you'll probably never see a correction.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...udy-finds-rush-limbaugh-least-trustworthy-ne/

You probably won't see Media Matters complain about it, either.
 
The fault lies not so much in the falsehood, but their calculated repetition of it in its entirety while making their "correction" in the small print at the end.
 
Time to sue for libel....
 
Kobie said:
Wouldn't stick. Technically corrected, no discernable damage, no intent.
Click to expand...

There was intent... there is always intent with Biebart.. it is a political hack machine spreading lies most of the time, and the damage is there as the lie is being spread despite the attempt retraction.
 
Manc Skipper said:
They claimed she represented the Clintons in Whitewater, then reprinted the entire hitpiece as a correction, with a sentence added at the end admitting it wasn't actually her who represented them.
Click to expand...

And they corrected it. So they made a mistake that they shouldn't have made. What is the big deal, and what are you looking to happen now?
 
tres borrachos said:
And they corrected it. So they made a mistake that they shouldn't have made. What is the big deal, and what are you looking to happen now?
Click to expand...

The correction was rather half-assed.
 
Kobie said:
The correction was rather half-assed.
Click to expand...

Most corrections usually are. I see them a lot, with a small caveat on the bottom, and not just on opinion sites, but in real news stories.

So a few Breitbart readers may not see the correction. Who cares? They don't get to vote on her nomination.
 
tres borrachos said:
Most corrections usually are. I see them a lot, with a small caveat on the bottom, and not just on opinion sites, but in real news stories.
Click to expand...
It's true that the entire media industry is terrible at getting facts right in the first place, identifying errors and making appropriate corrections or retractions but this is a fairly extreme case. This isn't about one line in the middle of the article which they're correcting, the basis of the entire piece was identified as being incorrect so there's really no valid scope for a simple correction to the article. Interestingly, the article page now gives a 404 error but you can still search for it on the site.

tres borrachos said:
So a few Breitbart readers may not see the correction. Who cares? They don't get to vote on her nomination.
Click to expand...
I think there is a general matter of principle regarding making a clear correction (and removing the false information too). Obviously many readers will be left with the assumption that she was involved with the Clinton's Whitewater defence and that will falsely colour their future opinion of her and what she does in the post. After all, wasn't that the whole point of the article in the first place?
 
tres borrachos said:
Most corrections usually are. I see them a lot, with a small caveat on the bottom, and not just on opinion sites, but in real news stories.

So a few Breitbart readers may not see the correction. Who cares? They don't get to vote on her nomination.
Click to expand...

Here is the difference, most corrections are for minor things....not the entire intent of the article.
 
So what if she did represent the Clinton's during Whitewater? She's a lawyer.

...and a pretty good one if she got those two sleazeballs off. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom