|
|
|
|
|
|
by mpyne
4729 days ago
|
|
|
> Presumably a shorter fact-checking interim is required in such cases. This isn't talking about news reporting about a current event, this is talking about a major scoop of highly secret government programs. In the event both Guardian and WaPo had to backtrack to various degrees on what they claimed of PRISM, so obviously there was more "fact-checking" yet to do. |
|
|
When is that ever not the case? News media retractions are not a bad thing in and of themselves. Occasionally a flawed story will harm a private citizen, but that isn't possible here, as we are talking about the activities of public servants.