Media 'sources', fake news, etc. a 1A discussion.
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:57 pm
So, with the recent incident with the kid getting his hat stolen...
Someone 'anonymously' reported being there, despite the video showing the place being empty, and said the social justice warrior attacked because the kid was making racial slurs.
Obviously, this is BS, and the original article writer later retracted the statement saying the accuracy of the statement was questionable.
But, news articles and even TV news reports, are reporting 'anonymous sources say the kid is racist', citing the original report.
This reminds me 'unnamed sources say' which pretty much means 'we made this shit up, and we can't verify it'.....
So, a couple questions.
1. Does the media have the responsibility to verify the information it posts, either morally or legally.
2. Can reporters be compelled to disclose 'sources' (I remember a case on this, but don't remember the outcome).
3. What prevents me from authoring a story saying I got an anonymous tip that some politician I don't like diddled a kid or something?
The example.....
So, they keep the information, despite the fact that they retracted the info because it was suspect?
WTF?!
Just seems like a roundabout way for fake news to flourish... Just make shit up and claim someone else told you, then claim you're just providing information and letting the viewer decide.
Someone 'anonymously' reported being there, despite the video showing the place being empty, and said the social justice warrior attacked because the kid was making racial slurs.
Obviously, this is BS, and the original article writer later retracted the statement saying the accuracy of the statement was questionable.
But, news articles and even TV news reports, are reporting 'anonymous sources say the kid is racist', citing the original report.
This reminds me 'unnamed sources say' which pretty much means 'we made this shit up, and we can't verify it'.....
So, a couple questions.
1. Does the media have the responsibility to verify the information it posts, either morally or legally.
2. Can reporters be compelled to disclose 'sources' (I remember a case on this, but don't remember the outcome).
3. What prevents me from authoring a story saying I got an anonymous tip that some politician I don't like diddled a kid or something?
The example.....
So, they keep the information, despite the fact that they retracted the info because it was suspect?
WTF?!
Just seems like a roundabout way for fake news to flourish... Just make shit up and claim someone else told you, then claim you're just providing information and letting the viewer decide.