you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 65 points 1 year ago* (19 children)

Pathetic and disgraceful for the guardian.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    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)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Par for the course for the left

    Edit: I'm talking about receiving misplaced blame

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Lol so do the right and center score +15 on this course typically? Or more like a DNF type awkward situation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    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 🤷‍♀️".

  • source
  • parent