all 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 29 points 1 year ago

Too little, too late. They, along with every other corporate media outlet, are so desperate to be first to publish that they'll happily pour gas on the wildfire.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    The person the Guardian used as a source was almost certainly a Utah Republican. Eager to find a scapegoat, and willing to lie to avoid any reflection or accountability. The British Guardian was too credulous.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    The Guardian was caught posting propaganda, and were forced to retract it.

    Just more nazi billionaire bullshit: "All the left are your enemies! No compromise, no surrender, fight until you die or they're all dead!" That's their goal, that's their propaganda.

    All the far-right extremist terrorists have already heard their message, no amount of retraction can get that programmed propaganda out of their minds. They already felt the hate for the left, from the propaganda. They don't want to feel bad for listening to a bad news source, so it's just a plot by the left - and that generates more hate.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    and yet the headline persists...

  • source
  • 61 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 130 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I'm annoyed that this post doesn't include a link to the SOURCE. Grrr. Here it is.

    There. Now it isn't just a questionable possbly faked pic, but a verifiable retraction with the misleading 'leftist' bits still at the top of the page and in the sub-headline.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 21 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Sorry, I didn't think people would think fake news could appear in here. That wasn't something I was considering.

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

    There’s a bunch of tankies that constantly post Sputnik and RT and so on in various communities, and those places are very often running stories that I’d pidgeonhole as “fake news”. Always a good idea to cite and link your sources, as a general rule.

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

    Will do that from now on. Do those people get banned and taken care of if they're found to be posting bullshit?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    So they just leave the headline alone? They know many people don't even go past that...

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Not a headline. It’s a live post not an article.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    An article is a self-contained narrative which should be researched and corroborated before publication. A live blog is less detailed and formal, is more immediate, and has a higher error rate as speed is the aim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Why is a news organization publishing things that look like news articles but which have none of the elements of rigour that is expected of news organizations? Seems like something we should firmly reject.

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

    It may look to you like a news article, but you’re seeing a screenshot in isolation. It’s a post on a liveblog, and readers aren’t going to confuse it with an article.

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

    Apologies for the bluntness but that is absolute nonsense. I just took a look at the article on my phone: ZERO clear indication that this is any sort of "liveblog" whatever that's supposed to mean. It's from a news organization, it's not clearly marked as an editorial, the url and menu clearly mark it as "news", and the screenshot literally says "this article".

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/12/charlie-kirk-suspect-washington-utah

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

    Thanks for the correction, you're right, although I would push back that readers wouldn't confuse this with a news article. It looks like a news article from a news organization to me, and since they apparently did change the title after all, I think they would effectively agree that it is still a news article even if you call it a "live blog".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago

    And that's how you incite a civil war.

    Well played, brits! The redcoats have the final laugh. (/joke, because The Guardian is British)

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago

    What happened? Right-wingers suddenly don’t want to kill the killer and everyone he resembles? What changed?

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Sheesh, and that's the Guardian. One of the last good ones.

  • source
  • [–] 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
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Just Grauniad things. Maybe they shouldn’t have stuck all their sub-editors on zero hours contracts and fired them before they got tenure.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    A war would be the biggest story of their lifetimes.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    "Very hard Republicans" comedians are out of the job the way these jokes write themselves.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    he's mormon. is that part of the far right christian nationalist coalition or not?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    The 'leftist' dressed up as the rapist on Hallowe'en to own maga.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 year ago

    I think it's entirely possible they don't have an ideology, and they were shitposting IRL.

    The Trump costume is confusing because you don't know if he's wearing it to mock him, to support him, or if he just wanted to do it to trigger people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Can't retract what that casing said, lmao

    "Catch this fascist"

    Is the new

    "I SHOT REAGAN"

    Fuck fascism.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The casings were engraved with groyper memes, yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I haven't seen any convincing evidence of this yet. It's definitely a possibility, but we shouldn't act like it's been confirmed.

    As I said in another comment, groypers and their ilk coopt existing symbols to identify themselves. They act in the realm of plausible deniability, making it very hard to prove who is and isn't part of the movement.

    Most of the inscriptions could also support the conclusion that he's on the left. (More plausibly than they support the groyper idea, imo)

    Or maybe he's just a nihilist who wanted to be famous and filled the bullets with ironic memes and video game references.

    The case is not closed on his motivations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Every single thing was a groyper meme.

    He wore a trump costume. He wore a Pepe costume.

    If each casing existed in a vaccum, and there were no other information whatsoever (like his father wearing 3 percenter shirts, the costumes, even the timing of him becoming political) I'd be able to agree with you.

    I'm not saying his motives are confirmed, but to say he's not a groyper would be ignoring the information we do have.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Ah shit, a guy who shot up a school likes 4chan? Who could've seen that coming. Now it's a lemmy meme. You looked at this ur gay.

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

    I'm seeing very little (mainstream) coverage that he's a groyper. What's up with that? Is that considered not yet verified? Is that being held back so we can talk about his roommate/possible girlfriend that is trans and harp on that instead of him being a groyper and/or Fuentes fan?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 3 comments in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Too few people will know of this retraction

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments