|
|
|
|
|
|
by forapurpose
3111 days ago
|
|
|
I think these comments are exaggerated and misrepresent the situation, and no basis in fact is provided: > the recent wave of "guilty until proven innocent" ... > the media collectively decided that it was a good idea to promote abandoning the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," The stories I've read have done a good and careful job of corroborating and verifying their stories. Those that don't are subject to massive libel lawsuits like the one that shut down Gawker. > smugly righteous > hysteria This is name-calling, which doesn't add to the discussion, and it's against nobody in particular, which makes it meaningless. Who, by name, is smugly righteous or hysterical? And do those people affect us? Are they representative or influential somehow? |
|
|
There are several good recent examples of this: - the project veritas employee trying to shop a false abortion story to the post - the schumer accusation that was shown to be falsified - weinstein's fake accuser that was planted by his own team to discredit investigations
When people come with false information, it gets found and reported on, because journalists do their due dilligence. News organizations are really careful about this kind of thing, because screwing up here is a really good way to get your entire org badly burned.