This might have some validity if those media sources hadn’t been repeatedly proven to report unsubstantiated claims, which were later proven outright lies. If the media wants to be heralded as the ultimate source of credible info, they need to be 100% credible.
-
-
-
That's the eternal goal, which distinguishes reporters from politicians.
-
No, that’s the eternal goal which distinguishes true journalists from tabloid reporters. Once your credibility as a journalist is gone or opinion replaces fact, you are never viewed by that standard again. Unfortunately, politicians aren’t held to same standard of reliability.
-
I agree the burden on us is much greater. There's nothing worse than finding out you reported something that wasn't true, whether it's the spelling of a high school field hockey player's name or something of national significance. We're not infallible, but we issue corrections.
-
Unfortunately, in this day and age, corrections mean very little. Your original story is out there for the world to see, while corrections take a back page and are seldom seen. Case in point, look at how often we see now corrected reports being shared on Twitter as fact.
-
True. The benefit of web journalism, though, is that corrections live in the body of the stories.
-
But that is not the norm. In MANY cases they leave the original article as is and post a secondary with a correction which isn’t equally publicized.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
i’ll start to think about maybe believing the denials when i see the libel suits if woodward really did misquote these people they should be lining up to sue him into oblivion
-
And they won’t precisely because they know they said it,he has tapes of them saying it, and if they sued he’d just push play. A good journalist will protect their sources, but not if their sources abuse that privilege
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's self evident. Kelly and Mattis can either deny what's in the book or resign. Those are the only two options. Seems fairly obvious.
-
One of the two wrote the op ed. They may be better patriots than we are giving them credit for.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I was watching
@ThisWeekABC and Chris Christie denies what was said in Woodard book. I hope Woodard will come on#ThisWeekABC in the immediate future -
Hard to believe anything Chris Christie says. He’s lost credibility with me.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
THE
#WOODWARD IS DEFINATELY#CONNECTED TO#LIBERALS SINCE HE HAD LITTLE#REPUTATION WRITING A 1 GOOD#BOOK BEFORE.IF THERE IS SO MUCH#CAOS IN PRES.#TRUMP#ADMINISTRATION THAN WHY SO MUCH GETS DONE. -
CAOS? CHAOS is disorder. KAOS is the evil organization on Get Smart. But what is CAOS?
-
Why even answer such a nonsensical blurb?
-
I was hoping I could work a joke in, but they’re not taking the bait .
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I tend to favour the two time Pulitzer prize winning author over pretty much anyone affiliated with the White House!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.