Cross-posted from “The Guardian Retracts Their Coverage of the Shooter Being a Leftist” by @livejamie@lemmy.zip in !chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
Cross-posted from “The Guardian Retracts Their Coverage of the Shooter Being a Leftist” by @livejamie@lemmy.zip in !chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
Pathetic and disgraceful for the guardian.
The guardian is usually highly reputable. They’re one of the few left that I would consider reputable. Bit of a shame. At least they retracted it.
Meh, they are weak sisters. Look at their israel coverage, you should expect this.
Idk the retraction is pretty honest. Not to mention, that source may have said things originally, and not wanted to continue to say those same things afterwards for any number of reasons(they were lies or even, they don’t feel comfortable being publicized)
Why did such an internationally respected english news source go with such flimsy evidence on a topic where the consequences of leaning into rightwing narratives are so high?
Because it’s a live blog.
I don’t think that excuses this.
Same reason they repeat israel’s lies. They are weak.
because none of these major publications aside from propublica and others like it value real journalism because we live in a world that is so full of the lie that getting the story first is more important than getting the story right. the guardian is better than many, but many people who work there came from news orgs that valued speed over accuracy. blame advertisers normalizing shit like getting every news org to investigate who al gore was going to pick for is running mate. a story that required no scoop. we were all gonna find out no matter what
A reasonable person would not feel comfortable being publicized in this context.
Unless they want to get on the talk show circuit
Par for the course for the left
Edit: I’m talking about receiving misplaced blame
Lol so do the right and center score +15 on this course typically? Or more like a DNF type awkward situation?
It’s more like the golf scene from The Mask
I’m talking about receiving misplaced blame.
ah gotcha!
Genuine question, why? They reported on the information they had, even if it wasn’t flattering to the left. Then they retracted it when the information changed.
If you’re going to be the first to publish something consequential like this, you should have verified information from multiple sources, not a single phone interview.
My neighbor Steve says he knew Robinson personally, even went to the same church, and it was a brain parasite that caused him to go crazy and shoot someone.
I’m just gonna print that in the New England Journal of Medicine, because after all, it’s the information I have, and I can always retract it later, right?
/s 🙄
Misinformation is deeply dangerous and respectable journalists have a duty not to print bullshit in the first place. Sure, mistakes happen, but we don’t just hand-wave it away with “well, they said sorry sooooo 🤷♀️”.