Should the Media be impacted by reporting false things?

Shoe on other foot “Should Fox News be held accountable for fictional stories?” or is it on liberal news sources ?

To me, there is no difference. If a major “news” outlet is running with false stories to create a narrative, it is just wrong. No shoe on either foot. But let’s be serious…I’m not talking about gaffes such as one of the news channels calling the VA gov a Republican when he is a democrat. I’m talking about gross negligence as in the case I cited. And as far as I can tell, not a single “news” outlet has posted a retraction or apologized for their errors.

How about Sinclair giving all their outlets a “forced read”?

Yes, they should be held accountable. I’m relieved that this story did not receive as much attention as the “MAGA teen” incident, but it’s another example of the media looking for the perfect story of “evil Trump supporters” that ended up falling flat on its face. Jussie Smollett is a POS; the damage this does to people who actually are victims of hate crimes—this will discourage people from coming forward when they are attacked and lead to more people being skeptical when these stories come out.

To the question about impact; the media used the police report most likely so how are media responsible ?

IMO the media has an ethical obligation to report the objective truth to the greatest practical extent. Freedom of the press should be protected strongly but abuses should be subject to stiff criminal penalties.

Punishing a media outlet because they reported a politician’s claims without verifying his lies is a bit harsh. They wouldn’t be able to show any press conference by Trump or his aides. Or his lawyers. Or his spokesmen or spokeswomen.
The right would end up setting up the media.

I disagree with your example. Mr. Smollet reported this story, and every news story I read on it said “alleged attack.” In this case, they were reporting a story that was reported to the police. Mr. Smollet should be the one in trouble for false reporting of a crime, if that indeed is the case.

I want any program claiming to be a “news” program, and all people calling themselves reporters or journalists to have to fact check, but I’m not sure how realistic it is to require it or enforce it according to the law. 15 + years ago I was really bothered by the laws changing allowing unbalanced journalism to flourish.

Now, with social media, it’s all a mess anyway. It feels so out of control and very difficult to reign in.

It would be great if some networks and newspapers had very strict standards for research. I think ABC, NBC, CBC, and periodicals like Washington Post, Nee York Times, and some others still really do care about telling the truth. The thing is even the truth can be biased, one sided or twisted. Truth is not the end all be all for getting a complete view of a situation, because partial truth isn’t exactly a lie technically I guess. Not if you were trying to prosecute something under the law.

Reckless Disregard for the Truth should be the name of the crime.

Like him or hate him, there have been about a hundred major news stories since 2015 that have influenced people’s views of Donald Trump and his supporters. Those who oppose Trump get very angry and disappointed when the news doesn’t pan out to their expectations because the story was false, hype, or innuendo. Oddly enough they blame Trump and his supporters.

There is enough REAL to hate about your opposition than to make up crap and sell it as news.

There needs to be stiff penalties for reckless disregard for the truth. It does damage to our culture, society, and precarious political situation. It sows great discord in the nation.

The media reports of Jussie Smollett’s claims to have been the victim of a racial attack were factual. Smollett had made such claims. The investigating agency in the case is the Chicago Police Department, not the news media, and the media are simply reporting on the police investigations which are not yet complete, though apparently the “trajectory of the investigation” has changed.

It’s a bizarre case but the media are not at fault.

One again, @seawulf575 uses the term MSM to play the elitist and to put his views on a different plane.

I’m not going to dignify his assertions, except to say that the right wing media (Fox, Blaze, and dozens of others) are not paragons of objective accuracy either.

Anyone who blames the so-called MSM for not reflecting his view on the world is not to be taken seriously.

@chyna I absolutely agree that Smollett should burn for this charade. He wasted police resources that could have been used to deal with actual crimes. He is a fraud and he did it specifically for publicity to keep his job on Empire…at least that is the appearance. But I would hope we are all in agreement that fake reports to the police should result prosecution on their own. But I’m talking about the MSM reports. We could carry that into politicians jumping to condemnations before facts are in if you like.

@elbanditoroso I understand you feel protective of liberal news outlets, but go back up and look at my response to @Tropical_Willie. To me, there is no difference. If a major “news” outlet is running with false stories to create a narrative, it is just wrong. No shoe on either foot. I’m not using any term for one organization and not the rest. I am focused more on the big names in “news” reporting…not blogs or radical outlets. But the question applies to all news outlets and not just some and the Smollett case is just an example.
Interestingly, though, you accuse me of elitist views and putting my views on a different plane and then you do exactly what you accuse me of by trying to blast the right wing outlets. Hypocrite much?

Jussie Smollett was recently attacked and claimed his attackers used racial and homophobic slurs against him. The media ran with this story without checking the facts.

I see your problem here.

The media reported that Smollet “claimed his attackers used racial and homophobic slurs”. That’s a fact. Nobody has disputed he made the claims.

But you insert your emotions and see it as “running with false stories to create a narrative”.

Faux News misleading and laughable !

@seawulf575 “Running with false stories to create a narrative”.
By asking this spurious question you are more guilty of this than the media.

The Covington kids story was a more egregious example of the media’s faults than this is. In that case the MSM essentially ran with a viral video and had to make retractions.

I doubt there will be much need for retractions here, although most of the initial reports haven’t aged well. I do think many people, not just the media, were eager for an “evil Trump supporters” story. Yet another one that has turned out to be false.

And again, @seawulf575 you mischaracterize me and what I wrote.

I am not equating ‘liberal media’ (whatever that is) with Mainstream Media. you are.

Because you are falsifying what I wrote, and don’t seem to see any difference in the facts, I choose to no longer engage with someone who is wilfully and purposely misrepresenting things.

I

The POTUS himself reports lies every day. Interesting that the OP cares nothing about that…

Another example of morality being a convenience, for the OP.

Are you really sure of this, @MrGrimm888 ?

Most of what has been reported about Trump even in formerly reputable sources has turned out to be false, or unproven.

Do you still believe the Trump campaign “colluded” with Russia to steal the election? About 42% of Americans do. Some even on Fluther vehemently believe this. Yet nothing about Russian collusion has turned up. It DOES seem, however, the Hillary Clinton campaign, certain DOJ and FBI upper echelon, through Fusion GPS colluded with Russia in spreading lies about Trump and planting spies in the Trump campaign.

This is the first time in U.S. history a coup has been attempted at a U.S. president utilizing Russian sources, including the dossier.

Many of these same officials were involved in the sale of American uranium to Vladmir himself in 2009, when cash flowed from Russia to the Clinton foundation in the Uranium One deal—even reported by the NY times. Yet people are so conditioned to think the other way, that no one bats an eye.

@seawulf575: “Should the MSM be held accountable?”

Explain what that might mean. Since MSM is a term to describe corporate media without calling out corporate ownership, I’m assuming you are aware that the corporate media are large corporations, right? As a capitalist, you would likely agree that the goal of these corporations is to make money for the stockholders, correct? Since they are working to do so, what does “held accountable” mean?

Are you suggesting a boycott of these corporations? Are you suggesting a reorganization of the media to eliminate corporate ownership? What exactly are you talking about?

@Call Me Jay makes an interesting point. If the news is “Smollet says he was attacked”, is the outlet responsible for verifying the truth of it? Which media outlet bears the blame for Trump’s loudmouth “stable genius” claim or record setting inaugural attendence boasts?

@Yellowdog . Most news outlets tally Trump’s lies at over 7,000, in his two years as POTUS. Most are easily verifiable. Are YOU sure that you aren’t just another sheep, eating his bullshit sandwiches?

When the guy you back, is THAT dishonest, I think I can call out the OP for why those 7,000 lies don’t matter to him. He only takes issue with things that contradict his own thinking. Otherwise, he has NO ethics…..

From an objective standpoint, the Trump years are the worst possible environment conservative advocates will ever see for pushing the liberal media bias urban legend. As long as the fool is in office, there is absolutely no point in criticizing ANYONE for neglecting or understating the failings of ANYONE else. Trump is unique among Presidents in that no smear campaign or series of
dirty tricks employed against him can match his actual record for bungling ineptitude.

@elbanditoroso let’s review:

One again, @seawulf575 uses the term MSM to play the elitist and to put his views on a different plane.

I’m not going to dignify his assertions, except to say that the right wing media (Fox, Blaze, and dozens of others) are not paragons of objective accuracy either.

Anyone who blames the so-called MSM for not reflecting his view on the world is not to be taken seriously.

First off, using the term MSM is not playing elitist. It is a summation of the major “news” outlets, nothing more. I did not specify right-wing or left-wing biased outlets. In fact, in response to the first comment I clarified that even further.

The second comment then goes on to blast “right wing media”. That makes YOU elitist, not me. So you are slamming yourself or are just a hypocrite. I’ll let you decide how you want the world to see you.

The third comment cements home your hypocrisy. You use the term MSM which you tried to blast me for using. You then go on to blame the right wing media for not reflecting your views, which is exactly what you were trying to say I was doing.

And again, @seawulf575 you mischaracterize me and what I wrote.

I am not equating ‘liberal media’ (whatever that is) with Mainstream Media. you are.

Because you are falsifying what I wrote, and don’t seem to see any difference in the facts, I choose to no longer engage with someone who is wilfully and purposely misrepresenting things.

As you can plainly see, I’m not mischaracterizing anything. I am willing to take every word you write and address it. I’m not trying to say anything you haven’t already said. So this is a lie attempting to discredit me and mischaracterize me. Typical liberal projectionism.

And once again, I am not equating liberal media with Mainstream Media (a term you say I am elitist for using, yet you keep using). I have stated repeatedly now that to me, there is no difference in the ideological slant. The fact that you keep trying to push this shows you are the one that is trying to mischaracterize me. You are the one that is falsifying things. Again, typical liberal projectionism.

As with the previous comments, I am willing and have copied and pasted ALL your comments. I’m not cherry picking anything, I’m not making stuff up, I am not falsifying anything. It is indeed you that are trying to do that to me. And your last statement is sort of a third grade attempt and “gotcha last!”. Spread lies about me and then run away. Just keep running because you obviously have too little wit to have an honest discussion and only bring personal attacks against me, assigning your own shortcomings to me in an effort to discredit me. Keep running.

@hmmmmmm I do indeed understand that the MSM are corporations. But each of them has to operate under FCC guidelines as well as a number of other laws that might pertain.

Face it. The urgency to disparage the msm amounts to little more than an attempt at “he can’t possibly be as bad as ‘they’ say he is”. The ludicrous defense of “you have your miscreants too” is a waste of time as an accusation against coverage of any and all other defectives operating in the noxious shadow of the undisputed champ—the “Pearl Harbor of Presidents”.

@seawulf575. Aren’t you perpetuating the same thing you are accusing the media of doing in the case of Jussie Smollett? In your O/P you state that Smollett staged his own attack and paid someone to do it. You said it wasn’t a real thing and the media didn’t fact check it. As of this morning, February 18, 2019 at 10 a.m. YOUR story has not been confirmed yet, either. It is, at this point, a he said, he said story. Yet you reported it as if it was a proven fact. Hmmm.

@chyna possibly, but there are differences. I am not a news outlet with investigative journalists. Nor did I jump off the deep end on the first story, before there were actual facts. I did not call this a modern day lynching. I did not call it a hate crime. I did not blame the POTUS for the attack. AND there has actually been an investigation into this. The individuals Smollett claimed attacked him have been brought in and questioned and the police have not brought charges and have, in fact, taken the investigation in a whole new direction, wanting instead to requestion Smollett. The “assailants” showed actual proof of their story to the police. If the police running the investigation bring in the “offenders” and have enough information to (a) not charge them with anything and, in fact, release them and (b) to shift the investigation back to Smollett, I feel I am on better footing than all those that ran with the initial story.
See, here is my complaint with the whole thing. The MSM does this all the time. And again, please note I’m not specifying a political slant to the MSM. But they all do it…they run off with a story and give it credence before there are any facts about. They create a narrative to fill up air time and/or push an ideological slant apparently. When this story first happened, what were the verifiable facts? That Jussie Smollett claimed to be attacked and that the police were investigating. Anything beyond that is speculation and slant. You can use this same thought process to just about every story in the news these days…at least on the big media outlets. I find local news is more honest about these things. At a local level (at least around me), the story would have been that the Empire actor reported being attacked, the time and place it allegedly happened, and police are investigating (along with any descriptions of individuals they may be looking for). That is a more honest report. To say anything more is to try slanting it. Even if you are running with what Smollett reported to the police, you are reporting one side and are doing so before any evidence had been collected. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the real story had been that Smollett was drunk and physically attacked two guys and they kicked his ass. So then he runs to the police with the story that he was attacked for no reason and that the assailants did so because he was black and/or gay. The media runs with that story and brands these guys racists and homophobes. They are eventually picked up and brought in for questioning. The chances of them getting a fair shake are zero. Want another example of where this happened? Michael Brown. The initial story that the MEDIA ran with was that Darren Wilson shot him when he was on his knees with his hands in the air because Wilson was a racist pig. That was the report from one witness who happened to be with Brown during the commission of a crime just moments before. As the investigation moved forward, many witnesses came forward with stories that supported Officer Wilson’s account of the events. In court Wilson was acquitted of all charges. But what was the impact of the irresponsible media coverage? Wilson’s career was over and his life in his home was ruined and all this led to a huge riot in Ferguson MO that destroyed all sorts of property and was instrumental in forming BLM which then went on to be present at many other riots and mischievous acts like blocking highways.
Irresponsible journalism has an impact and running off half-cocked is usually how it starts.

@stanleybmanly I like your “Pearl Harbor of Presidents”; he is a sneak attack against the USA.

Which media? There is a vast difference between different media, you know. The National Enquirer is media, but it’s 99% fairy tales. They take a nugget of truth and build a wild fantasy around it. But that’s what people expect from the National Enquirer. Anyone who actually believes their tales is a fool.
It’s not what we expect from the BBC or ABC or Reuters.
So which media reported this as a fact? CBS and NBC are printing reports that it was orchestrated.

Reputable media IS impacted. If they screw up they issue an apology and recant. On 60 Minutes Lara Logan reported inaccurately on Benghazi and almost lost her job:

Benghazi report apology

“On 8 November 2013, Logan went on CBS This Morning to apologize for an inaccurate 60 Minutes report about the Benghazi attack, which had aired on 27 October. She indicated that an investigation uncovered that the source of much of her reporting was inaccurate and blamed it on Dylan Davies, manager of the local guard force at the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi. Logan said he lied about information but insisted they looked into his credibility and relied on such things as photographs and documents he supplied. In hindsight, Logan said they learned that the story told by Davies didn’t match what he told federal investigators. “You know the most important thing to every person at 60 Minutes is the truth,” she said in the on-air apology on the morning show. “And today the truth is we made a mistake. And that’s ah… that’s very disappointing for any journalist. That’s very disappointing for me.” Logan went on to add, “Nobody likes to admit they made a mistake. But if you do, you have to stand up and take responsibility – and you have to say you were wrong. And in this case we were wrong.”[25] She was criticized for this apology by Jeremy Holden of Media Matters for America and Michael Calderone of The Huffington Post, who saw the apology as inadequate.[26][27]

On 26 November 2013, Logan was forced to take a leave of absence due to the errors in the Benghazi report.[5][28] Al Ortiz, Executive Director of Standards and Practices for CBS News, wrote in a memo, “Logan made a speech in which she took a strong public position arguing that the U.S. Government was misrepresenting the threat from Al Qaeda, and urging actions that the U.S. should take in response to the Benghazi attack. From a CBS News Standards perspective, there is a conflict in taking a public position on the government’s handling of Benghazi and Al Qaeda, while continuing to report on the story.”[29][30]

It’s the news, not a thoroughly researched dissertation. He said he was attacked, it was reported. He said these people did this and that, it was reported. That’s what the news is. News reporting is not the same as editorializing.

It’s tough to pin the tag of biased sensationalism for reporting in detail the quotes from the mouths of celebrities, particularly when the quotes themselves are sensational. If the quotes are reported accurately, the truth has been served. The exception would be when the journalist is aware that the quotes are lies, in which case one expects that fact integral to the story. Trump is the paradigm example of bias assigned the industry simply because the news consistently displays him for the fool he is through ACCURATELY quoting him nonstop. Should his quote be withheld pending proof that he is a stable genius?

@stanleybmanly but in this case, all the major news outlets ran with unverified information. They even gave Smollett credibility by interviewing him. All while the police investigation was just starting. They did indeed accurately quote in their reports that a police report was filed, but many of the headlines were not so general. It wasn’t that a police report says that Smollett was attacked, it was Smollett was attacked in a viscous hate crime!. Big difference.

@tinyfaery But if you are a reputable news site you can’t report just anything someone says happened to them. Your site would be full of UFO abductions and all kinds of stuff.

@Dutchess_III You can if a police report was made.

Well, you can even without a police report too @tinyfaery. It depends on how credible you want to appear.

So now there is a felony warrant out for Smollett for Disorderly Conduct , Filing a false report. Does that change the opinion of any of those that feel reporting his initial report was responsible?

Now I’m curious as to which sites published it as some sort of fact before it was vetted? Was it NPR? BBC? Reuters?

I agree that sensational headlines are often deliberately misleading. But if Smollett had claimed abduction by aliens, every word of his adventure would be reported in riveting detail. The sensationalism isn’t about the veracity of Smollett’s account, it’s about the fact that HE is involved. And no the media is not diminished for reporting what he said, particularly when the same media later reveals him to have lied deliberately and broadcasts his demotion to common criminal.

Wait. I guess you guys are right. BBC DID report it as though it was a fact. But they are just as quick to report that it was a hoax.

No. The news reports things that change all the time.

If every media outlet waited until “proof” is offered there would be no news.

@stanleybmanly No, if he had claimed he was abducted by aliens, no one would have taken him seriously, except possibly the National Enquirer….and maybe not even them. They have journalistic standards, of a sort. But because he made the story sound like it was Trump supporters that beat on him, the leftist media ate it up. You know that is true. What would it have been if the attackers had been portrayed as AOC adherents or Obama lovers? Think any of the “news” outlets would have covered it? Think they would have given him credibility? Even if it WAS true? I’m going to say…no. You can’t get most “news” outlets to come out with anything that might cast a shadow on Dems/progressives/liberals/leftists.

@tinyfaery as I responded earlier, they do get things wrong…that is a fact. All news outlets do. But what would responsible journalism look like? To me it looks like what I described earlier: Smollett reported being attacked, where and when it happened, the police are investigating, and a description of people the police are looking for, if there are any. As the investigation proceeds, if the story bears truth and they have names or have found the people and they are indeed suspects, THEN you start into the sensationalizing. That is when you interview Smollett. That is when you start slamming the motives of the suspects.
The problem is that the media has started going crazy with just accusations. Look at Kavanaugh, Moore, Franken, Weinstein. Look at the other dozen hoax “hate crimes” that have been committed. As soon as someone comes out with something outlandish, it is gospel to the media until it is proven false. By the time it is proven false, the damage to reputations is already done.

That’s absurd. You are once again confusing the barrage of stories on idiotic racial and identity bias to be the selective work of the press, rather than the possibility that the propensity toward violence is not evenly distributed across the political spectrum. There is is less coverage of leftist violence and racial terror simply because there is less of IT. If people are so ready to believe Smollett, who can argue that recent events don’t grant credence to the fiction. Since you are so enamored with the romantic fiction of 1900 era yellow dog democrats as leftist proponents, you wind up fronting an argument equivalent to “the klan is a victim of bad press because lynchings of white folks by black mobs is underreported.

Every form of discrimination has those that justify their actions. Every form. You are justifying this discrimination using similar arguments to those that were used to keep blacks as second-class citizens.

No. There is no Industry bias in the story to justify or deny. YOU are operating on the pretense that there must be equivalent gangs of roving hairdressers terrorizing skinheads. You then extrapolate the fact that no mention is made of such incidents in the press as proof of liberal bias

No, I extrapolate that the liberal media runs with false stories on all sorts of things that will cast conservatives in a bad light. And I noticed you have absolutely zero citations to support such a silly statement.

@seawulf575 WTF where is your citations ??

“In my opinion doesn’t cut it ”

Gee, @Tropical_Willie when have you EVER given me a citation? Get off you high horse and follow your own advice, hypocrite.

@Tropical_Willie I notice @stanleybmanly hasn’t given a single citation either. Where is your outrage towards him? Double hypocrite. In fact, if you look up this thread, the only person that HAS cited anything is @Dutchess_III. Why haven’t you jumped on @stanleybmanly, @tinyfaery, @chyna, @MrGrimm888, @hmmmmmm, @Yellowdog, or @elbanditoroso? Oh, and as I previously stated, YOU haven’t given any either. Tell you what…when you start getting offended by EVERYONE that gives and opinion without any citations AND when you start giving citations every time, I’ll give you credibility to get on me. Until then, piss off.

Yes I have, but then again it didn’t support your Neo-Nazi views ,

@seawulf575 What is wrong with you? I offered that hairdresser thing merely as a ridiculous example of your contention that the absence of news bolstering your position can only result from liberal bias. I don’t need to cite anything to disprove your preposterous notion that skinheads brutalize gay men and minorities while the paucity of reports on gay men brutalizing conservatives is a result of media suppression.

I need a citation for my opinion?

LOLL!! Be nice.

@tinyfaery apparently so. Ask @Tropical_Willie because that is what he expects from me. According to him, “In my Opinion” doesn’t cut it. So cough up that citation!

You always try to present your opinion as fact.

smh.

So you can’t show any evidence of you claim. That’s pretty much what I thought. Tell you what…the next time you want to demand a citation from me, take a moment to see if you have demanded one from others that haven’t given them. And the next time I give a citation, if you don’t like it, at least point out what about it you don’t like. That way you and I will have a whole lot better accord. Anything less and you will be nothing but a hypocrite.

I’m out. I’m not going to waste my breath on a name calling baby any more.

Yeah, kinda what I figured. Toss a turd and then run away.

Sorry @seawulf575 . I have been dealing with a family emergency. Regardless, this is a deplorable act. I agree. I will judge it, as I do BS conservative stories that stir divisiveness, and help nobody.

I have read that this was related somehow to the actors salary, that he was displeased with. It was not politically motivated. But ,in these times, it has political ramifications. I believe that the accuser should be held accountable, and he will.

I have heard daily reports that the story was manufactured. All on “liberal ” media. Even Bill Maher mentioned it.

@MrGrimm888 Sorry to hear about the family emergency. I hope all is better now.

^Thanks @seawulf575 . All I have to say is, cherish every moment with our loved ones.

Peace n love.