[yeuxardents]

Honestly it troubles me that anyone believes 'journalists' from any of the major corporations have _any_ credibility, even going back to the 1990s with censorship of stories have been rife within the corporate 'journalism' industry. There are very few journalists that deserve real credibility.

[aeternum]

It has been an issue since the invention of the printing press. Benjamin Franklin himself published fake news about Indian tribes scalping the settlers in order to convince the colonists to take action against them.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-37-02-01...

[User23]

He wrote in his Autobiography that propaganda was the primary reason to own a newspaper.

[Alupis]

Journalists should not be afforded legal protections for publishing un-verified, demonstrably false information.

We need a system where it's dangerous to not thoroughly vet your story before throwing it over the fence.

Currently, they just say "oops" and move on like it never happened... but the damages caused to the public and it's discourse are permanent. The past decade has shown us that much at a minimum.

Years from now folks will still howl about Musk marching loyal twitter employees out the front door with boxes full of their belongings... despite it being completely untrue. Heck, there are still folks that feverishly assert the "OK" sign is racist...

[nradov]

Journalists don't have any special protection under US federal law for publishing false information. Anyone can sue them for libel. Although it's difficult for plaintiffs to win such cases, regardless of whether the defendant is a journalist or anyone else.

[Alupis]

It does not need to be libel to be permanently damaging to the public.

The "OK" sign as a symbol of "white power" is a great example - nobody's reputation was tarnished directly by the reporting... but the entire story was made up and never true. Yet, there's folks today that insist it truly is a symbol of "white power".

Libel is also notoriously difficult to establish grounds for, and be successful with a lawsuit. Intent is difficult to prove - yet I would assert a journalist that does not thoroughly vet their story before publishing has a malicious intent, even if it was indirect.

[nemothekid]

>The "OK" sign as a symbol of "white power" is a great example - nobody's reputation was tarnished directly by the reporting... but the entire story was made up and never true. Yet, there's folks today that insist it truly is a symbol of "white power".

This is strange - the OK symbol was definitely co-opted by white nationalists; it started as a "media troll", then people started to do it non-ironically. It served it's purpose and to say it was "never true" is at the very least controversial. I had personally seen it spread on /pol/ months before it got any mainstream coverage.

While I believe the story may have been overblown, I think it stands it would be very difficult to sue a journalist that this was libel or even untrue. At the very least the memes had to have started from somewhere and that posing with the ok symbol wasn't a particularly popular thing to do until after the memes were created.

[Alupis]

It started on 4Chan as a deliberate "watch us make the media go nuts" joke... and it worked.

Today, here you are asserting it actually has an alternate, nefarious meaning. It doesn't, and never did.

It became a meme because of how ridiculous of an idea it was.

I think you're proving my point. Retractions and corrections do not work. Published stories have enormous weight, yet modern journalists don't seem to be aware of, or do not care about, the potential harm they can do. It's just a race to publish first - truth be damned.

[nemothekid]

>It started on 4Chan as a deliberate "watch us make the media go nuts" joke... and it worked.

The disagreement then you and I have is that just because it was an "epic troll" doesn't make it any less serious. To me the fact that it's supposed to be a "joke on the media" is the point - it provides plausible deniability. That's the entire point of using the OK sign; Plausible deniability.

You could go on 4chan and found hundreds of pictures of guys posing with the ok sign, but you'd have to be really naive to think they didn't know what they were doing. A bunch of open white nationalists all adopted the same symbolism at the same time, but I'm supposed to pretend that the symbolism isn't being co-opted?

To be fair, I don't think it was ever the case that Trump or many high ranking officials used the OK symbol as some dogwhistle (Trump has always spoken with his hands), but to pretend it was never true is completely false. May journalists have blown the thing out of proportion? Sure, but that isn't libel and you can't sue someone for mistaking the growth of a trend.

>I think you're proving my point. Retractions and corrections do not work.

I am not someone who came to this conclusion from reading a New York Times article. I've spent a lot of time on 4chan in my teenage years and have kept the site at an arms distance. It was very clear to me what the gesture meant. I remember the threads, and I remember seeing the image the ADL now uses when it was first posted on there. To pretend that 4chan isn't full of white nationalists is bonkers. It's like saying the swatstika never meant anything other than spirituality. Their stated reasons for co-opting the symbol doesn't change the fact they co-opted it.

[andrew_]

you've been captured by the spin. as a sibling comment points out, it was a joke from the get go, and everyone was is on it except for those who wanted it to be true.

[nradov]

That's a very abstract and subjective concept of damage. What are you proposing exactly?

[_jal]

> Journalists should not be afforded legal protections

They have no special protection.

> need a system where it's dangerous

You want to destroy free speech, then. Any policy covering journalists would equally apply to everyone.

> assert the "OK" sign is racist

Are you asserting it wasn't used by trolling white nationalists? Or do you mean that the intent was trolling, rather than something "sincere"? Or something else?

[Alupis]

> They have no special protection.

Yes they do. How often are journalists successfully sued for damaging stories that turned out to be untrue and unverified?

> You want to destroy free speech, then

It has never been ok to harm someone else with your speech. People lose careers, lives and more over unverified stories.

> Are you asserting it wasn't used by trolling white nationalists? Or do you mean that the intent was trolling, rather than something "sincere"? Or something else?

There is no assertion, it is fact. This story was made up by 4Chan to provoke the exact response they got... and then young folks started meming with the sign because of how ridiculous it is.

There are still folks, however, that truly believe there were troves of actual white supremist roaming the streets flashing "secret" symbols to each other and giggling... Come on, say it out loud and try not to laugh.