Media Tracker

[SaintForLife]

I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.

There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.


That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they actually independently confirmed the story?






Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?

 

[SystemShock]

Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?

Because only one side corrects their errors.

 

[SaintForLife]

Because only one side corrects their errors.

Why are their "errors" always about people on the right?

 

[MT15]

SFL, don’t you think that the same person who misquoted the call could have been fielding calls from multiple media outlets? Thereby “confirming” the original story with multiple outlets. That would be my first guess. It’s also possible that the source got the phone calls mixed up, and attributed those quotes to this call when they were actually said in a different call. There were apparently multiple calls made by Trump trying to get someone in GA to swing the election to him.

Do you think it might be possible that you only remember errors that involve people on the right? That’s a very common thing that people do.

Do you know what procedures are followed by major newspapers when using anonymous sources?

The real bias in media is more likely to be found in how stories are selected and which stories are featured. Most of the MSM do make good faith efforts to be factual in their reporting.

 

[SystemShock]

Why are their "errors" always about people on the right?

Because you are only interested in those errors.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Because you are only interested in those errors.

This is of course the issue. Remember Tucker Carlson having to apologize for reporting all the dead people who voted, and then it turns out they didn't? That happens frequently. There used to be a Daily Show segment, just dedicated to Fox News running with false stories and then quietly retracting them.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Really take note of the Ilhan Omar segment, this is how America's extreme right Republicans form their impressions of the Democratic party.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I think our standards for the Washington Post should be higher than our standards for Hannity or Tucker Carlson. I would say a more accurate comparison would be examples of the WSJ having to apologize for mistakes or at least the Fox News division.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think our standards for the Washington Post should be higher than our standards for Hannity or Tucker Carlson. I would say a more accurate comparison would be examples of the WSJ having to apologize for mistakes or at least the Fox News division.

This is also true, and also I think SFL wants to know if say the Washington Post or NYT does a critical story about a Democrat and then later has to do a retraction. This of course does happen as well, I'll do a search for that as well.

 

[wardorican]

So, they talked to someone on the call, that person didn't directly quote, but I guess either paraphrased, or misquoted Trump. Later, the audio comes out to confirm reality, and that the old quote wasn't a true quote, but likely a paraphrasing, and likely the interpretation of the listener who was the source.

Good, the actual record was corrected, but I don't see how this is an indictment on the WaPo.

They weren't given access to the call or the full transcript. It's not like the Secretary of State call, where it was released almost immediately after.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.

There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.


That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they actually independently confirmed the story?






Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?

They didn't retract their reporting, they made a correction that really doesn't change anything because whether he said what the initially reported or what is actually in the recording doesn't change the fact of what his intentions were and that was for them to find the "fraud" even though they had already searched.

The implication of trump's message was clear to the reporters and, most likely, its recipients.

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL, don’t you think that the same person who misquoted the call could have been fielding calls from multiple media outlets? Thereby “confirming” the original story with multiple outlets. That would be my first guess. It’s also possible that the source got the phone calls mixed up, and attributed those quotes to this call when they were actually said in a different call. There were apparently multiple calls made by Trump trying to get someone in GA to swing the election to him.

Do you think it might be possible that you only remember errors that involve people on the right? That’s a very common thing that people do.

Do you know what procedures are followed by major newspapers when using anonymous sources?

The real bias in media is more likely to be found in how stories are selected and which stories are featured. Most of the MSM do make good faith efforts to be factual in their reporting.

Independently confirming a report significantly increases the credibility of the initial report because it makes it appear that other news organizations have conducted their own investigations and found additional evidence that shows it's true.

What really happens is the same source feeds the same false report to other outlets and those outlets repeat it without any investigation to determine if it's true. That's not independently confirming a report.



If you can find any recent big political stories towards people on the left with similar type of errors please post them because I can't recall any.

 

[Dragon]

Independently confirming a report significantly increases the credibility of the initial report because it makes it appear that other news organizations have conducted their own investigations and found additional evidence that shows it's true.

What really happens is the same source feeds the same false report to other outlets and those outlets repeat it without any investigation to determine if it's true. That's not independently confirming a report.

If you can find any recent big political stories towards people on the left with similar type of errors please post them because I can't recall any.

No one on the left has tried to do anything remotely as bad as trying to steal an election by intimidation and threats so that would be impossible...

 

[Sandman]

They didn't retract their reporting, they made a correction that really doesn't change anything because whether he said what the initially reported or what is actually in the recording doesn't change the fact of what his intentions were and that was for them to find the "fraud" even though they had already searched.

The implication of trump's message was clear to the reporters and, most likely, its recipients.

Props for the Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia video. “The implication.”

 

[RobF]

So, they talked to someone on the call, that person didn't directly quote, but I guess either paraphrased, or misquoted Trump. Later, the audio comes out to confirm reality, and that the old quote wasn't a true quote, but likely a paraphrasing, and likely the interpretation of the listener who was the source.

Good, the actual record was corrected, but I don't see how this is an indictment on the WaPo.

They weren't given access to the call or the full transcript. It's not like the Secretary of State call, where it was released almost immediately after.

Yes. And as far as I can see the reporting was not "Trump said this", but "Trump said this according to a person familiar with the call." Those aren't the same thing. What can be independently confirmed without access to the direct audio is that there is indeed a source familiar with the call, and that the source does say what's been reported.

This should probably be in the media literacy thread really.

 

[SaintForLife]

This is of course the issue. Remember Tucker Carlson having to apologize for reporting all the dead people who voted, and then it turns out they didn't? That happens frequently. There used to be a Daily Show segment, just dedicated to Fox News running with false stories and then quietly retracting them.

There's quite a big difference between cable tv news shows and NYT/Washington Post, etc right?

 

[SaintForLife]

So, they talked to someone on the call, that person didn't directly quote, but I guess either paraphrased, or misquoted Trump. Later, the audio comes out to confirm reality, and that the old quote wasn't a true quote, but likely a paraphrasing, and likely the interpretation of the listener who was the source.

Good, the actual record was corrected, but I don't see how this is an indictment on the WaPo.

They weren't given access to the call or the full transcript. It's not like the Secretary of State call, where it was released almost immediately after.

Do you think it was wise to report an explosive story like this one based what they thought they heard or what someone else told them? Shouldn't they have confirmed the story through different sources and/or waited until they saw a transcript or heard the audio to publish the report?

 

[SaintForLife]

Really take note of the Ilhan Omar segment, this is how America's extreme right Republicans form their impressions of the Democratic party.

The memo has went out to the media with their ratings tanking post Trump. Tucker is their new Trump.