Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What A Weekend for Media Accuracy
On Friday, the news exploded with the news of what would have been the end of the Trump presidency, a BuzzFeed story about how Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen was instructed to lie to Congress. For the individuals giddy at the prospect, the news spread like wildfire. For the rest of us, alarm bells went off immediately.
And then, came this equally large bomb:
UPDATE: A spokesperson for the special counsel is disputing BuzzFeed News’ report. https://t.co/BEoMKiDypn pic.twitter.com/GWWfGtyhaE
— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) January 19, 2019
Later reporting further sunk BuzzFeed’s boat:
After BuzzFeed published its story “the special counsel’s office reviewed evidence to determine if there were any documents or witness interviews like those described, reaching out to those they thought might have a stake in the case. They found none.” https://t.co/GZFdzHwPVK
— Tim O'Brien (@TimOBrien) January 20, 2019
One would think media consumers would’ve learned their lesson about immediately believing narratives involving Trump. You would be wrong.
Later in the weekend, we saw this:
Video shows a crowd of teenagers wearing ‘Make America Great Again’ hats taunting a Native American elder after Friday’s Indigenous Peoples March at the Lincoln Memorial https://t.co/Llu2d3bn3g pic.twitter.com/UZg4Qraqt8
— CNN (@CNN) January 20, 2019
For journalists who spent just a few minutes doing some research before trying to destroy the lives of high school kids and their school, the story fell apart.
https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1087088839447977984
Nobody burst Oliver Darcy’s bubble.
This is itself a false statement. News organizations don’t “invent” the news, like you claim. That said, when they get things wrong, they correct the mistakes. Sometimes, people even get fired and lose their jobs. The idea there isn’t any accountability is preposterous. https://t.co/eowzuygaUS
— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) January 20, 2019
Published in Journalism
Are they? Andrew Egger who wrote the only piece on the site about the story retweeted this acknowledging Mueller statement Buzzfeed was wrong.
Because it is necessary to delegitimize NR and elevate ideologically consistent platforms like American Greatness.
Is Trump sycophancy an ideology?
“I wrote a false story and offered no corrections, but I retweeted someone else’s statement about it.” = Journalism!
I align myself with EJHill’s statement.
James, this is much more serious than a run-of-the-mill journalistic boo-boo. Under Times v Sullivan the American press enjoys a wide latitude when it covers persons who have willingly and willfully placed themselves in the public spotlight. Under no set of circumstances would a reasonable person come to the conclusion that a 17-year old kid from Covington, Kentucky planned to place himself at the Lincoln Memorial in order to seek national attention of this magnitude.
Within hours of this thing going viral the deputy editor of National Review decided to denounce a child as being, in his words, “evil,” placing him on the same level as Hitler or Stalin. He did so without further investigation on his part and republished the person’s image in order to publicly denounce him. This is not about ideological purity. It’s about reckless disregard for the truth and basic human decency. The action delegitimizes NR on its own, it doesn’t need any help from an outside “platform.”
Shrugging one’s shoulders, saying “my bad” and claiming it’s ok because you were caught up in the flow of the crowd shouldn’t cut it. Not this time.
Why not? Some here have made irrational opposition to him into one.
Acknowledging error and retracting the erroneous posts is more than shrugging of shoulders. What exactly do you suggest be done, public flogging, perhaps sackcloth and ashes?
He story wasn’t false; Buzzfeed did report exactly what he said it did. He then publicly acknowledged the story was denied.
The Bulwark has published nothing else on the subject and you falsely claimed it was still treating the story as true.
I don’t know, how about not posting it in the first place?
What’s so hard to understand about that? It’s a perfectly avoidable error. It’s one that should not have been made.
Why aren’t repeated questions annoying for a reason?
I don’t know?
Here was one more item which was showed the Media acting in bad faith – how many news outlets apologized for the “severely edited” video when first reported
http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/18/court-rules-undercover-videos-planned-parenthood-selling-baby-body-parts-authentic/
Neil, I personally don’t want a public flogging or anything of the sort. If I can accept apologies and efforts to make things right from Jake Tapper and Julia Ioffe (and here, unfortunately other tweets in the thread seem to be deleted), I can certainly accept it from Rich Lowry, Alexandra DeSanctis and others from National Review who jumped the gun. As public influencers, I most definitely hold them to a higher standard but the standard for me isn’t perfection. I’m seeing some pieces on National Review addressing the mistake. I’m good with that.
But to answer your question what should be done, similar to the question from @blueyeti on a thread about Mona Charen recently, I’d say what I would like to see done is for each of them to really do some serious self-reflection and soul-searching. Ask themselves if maybe they have gotten to a point where their disdain for President Trump and “own the libs” types has caused them to do the exact things they so often criticize others for doing. Ask themselves if they are helping are hurting public discourse overall and specifically the Republican Party or Conservative movement (I know some don’t even want to claim Republican anymore). Ask themselves if people they once considered on the same side (some, friends) don’t deserve more benefit of the doubt and a bit of restraint and humility. That’s it, that’s all I want.
If jumping on an Internet lynch mob, and against children no less, that many of them so often rail against can’t prompt them to do that, it is their character I think should be questioned.
Wasn’t there a post on this ages ago on the Member Feed?
As of ten hours ago, Jonah Goldberg is on Twitter touting NR’s diversity of opinion as justification.
I do as well. What if this was your kid? Wouldn’t you want more than just a “hey we deleted that other post calling your kids evil possibly ruining any future employment possibilities.” What NR did was pathetic. What if there wasn’t the rest of the footage available to exonerate these kids. Put yourself in these kids shoes and what it would be like having a media mob after you like that.
No. Something simple, like:
“NR ran with these baseless allegations and in so doing called these young men evil and a disgrace to their religion. We were wrong and sincerely apologize to the students.”
Something like that I suppose. You know, a real apology, not just a retraction.
People make mistakes, even editors at NR. When such mistakes are made, they should be acknowledged and retracted. Exactly as has been done.
John Batchelor frequently says that the first three reports are incorrect. We know people will frame stories and videos to make their ideological opponents look bad. Deferring immediate judgment may lead to less clicks, but it reduce false floggings of 17 year olds.
Maybe something like Scott Adams did?
Everyone should reflect on their mistakes, if for no other reason to avoid making similar ones in the future.
As for hurting the Republican Party or the conservative movement, I think opinion writers and columnists owe it to their readers to be honest about their thoughts. They should do so in a way which elevates the public discourse. In this case, Nick Frankovich did not. His error in judgement has been addressed and retracted.
An apology is owed to the kids and I pray one is given. It should be private and personal.
Has he apologized to the students he defamed? Remember these kids are still going through this and we still don’t know what the outcome will be. My hope is that they sue to crap out of everyone, ensuring their future, because we all know video evidence or not there are a lot people out there who will believe the original story until their dying breath. Go check out Jake Tapper’s twitter thread when he posted that the students were exonerated. Doesn’t matter, and imagine when these kids apply to college with the leftists who run those institutions. They aren’t going to roll out the red carpet like Harvard did for David Hogg.
The students need a public apology, from everyone who jumped the gun.
Just as the calumny was?
The offending post has been retracted.
I have just gone through Frankovich’s Twitter feed and his attitude and comments are indefensible.
I credit Rich Lowry for removing his and Frankovich’s posts and acknowledging the error in publishing them. Frankovich needs to take a look at all the available evidence and accept his error as well.
Rich Lowry apologized.
I guess that depends on which definition of “apology” you’re using. I just reread his Corner statement and can’t find the a-word in it. What do you consider his apology?
I recently learned of the 72 hour rule this weekend. Basically, when something is reported in the news, you don’t pay attention to it at first, instead you wait 72 hours and by the time you get around to it, it will have usually devolved into some pathetic inconsequential non-story that you can safely ignore.
The rule is true. I generally don’t pay attention to the news over the weekend. When I check back in on Monday I find there have been articles written, articles retracted, and a whole lot of wasted breath and ink about something that happened on Friday that turned out not to be very credible and/or important.
Only to conservatives.