Student tests MSM ability to check facts

[daniel49]

Text
second source

This was in essence a harmless misrepresentation of the facts, but illustrates a trend that has become to prevailant in MSM. The Dan Rather incident comes to mind off the top of my head.

Has ideology and laziness now become the two driving forces in reporting the news? Have jouralism schools changed what they are teaching?
Have integrity and fact checking taken a back seat to "the headline"?

Perhaps the old axiom "Buyer beware", should be replaced with "reader/viewer beware?
Who checks the fact checkers for accuracy? Are they any more reliable then the fact checkers themselves?

Assuming the above assumtions are true and valid, how does media reclaim the banner it once proclaimed? The higher ground it once was proud of?
Or are we simply reduced to believe media that agrees with our own predisposed world view?

 

[Brigandier]

Well, if the Constitution's guardians are the people, and the freedom of the press is a major right, whose responsibility is it to demand good journalism?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

wikipedia is a scourge to intellelect. Not only can erroneous information be poised as fact, the moderation of the site is faily bias in some areas.

 

[Genx87]

There have been multiple stories where MSM has quoted blogs, wiki, and even forum's as their sources for information. If anybody wants to truely get an idea of the news they need to grab it from multiple sources. Of course with the fact many sources are now simply reprinting AP stories even that idea may be on its way out.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Brigandier
Well, if the Constitution's guardians are the people, and the freedom of the press is a major right, whose responsibility is it to demand good journalism?

People, and we sure don't make 'em like we used to.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
wikipedia is a scourge to intellelect. Not only can erroneous information be poised as fact, the moderation of the site is faily bias in some areas.

I'm curious - such as?

 

[Phokus]

http://www.greenpuppy.com/foley/fnc1.jpg

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
wikipedia is a scourge to intellelect. Not only can erroneous information be poised as fact, the moderation of the site is faily bias in some areas.

I'm curious - such as?

It's almost a year old, but it is an example link

John Edwards' Wikipedia Page Strangely Love Child-Free
After all this Mickey Kaus blathering about MSM gatekeepers censoring the news and preventing the reader from learning "what happened yesterday" (or, at this point, last week), it's wonderful to see the citizen-journalists and crowdsourced new guardians of information acting just as ridiculously about this supposed John Edwards scandal. As you'll recall, the National Enquirer caught John Edwards sneaking into a hotel late one night to visit former staffer Rielle Hunter and her child. When they confronted him on his way out, he hid in a bathroom. Fox News confirmed the visit. But none of this meets Wikipedia's high standards of notability! You won't find Rielle or the Beverly Hilton even mentioned on the Edwards entry.

Despite the fact that the basic facts of the evening seem to be proven, Wikipedia's power-mad power-users are immediately deleting any and all mention of the John Edwards lovechild scandal the second any other user adds it. You could go over there and add "In July of 2008, Edwards was confronted at a Beverly Hills hotel by National Enquirer reporters searching for evidence of his participation in an extra-martial affair"?all true and verified by more "reliable" sources!?and it wouldn't last two minutes. (Actually you couldn't add that. The entry has been locked.) It's not notable enough for them, apparently. Though this is. And hell, so is this!

But no, the details of the probable end of the political aspirations of one of the 2000s most visible Democratic politicians are just not as notable as the fictional history of the Wookee homeworld.

 

[theeedude]

Let's ban free media, since they used wikipedia.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
wikipedia is a scourge to intellelect. Not only can erroneous information be poised as fact, the moderation of the site is faily bias in some areas.

I'm curious - such as?

It's almost a year old, but it is an example link

John Edwards' Wikipedia Page Strangely Love Child-Free
After all this Mickey Kaus blathering about MSM gatekeepers censoring the news and preventing the reader from learning "what happened yesterday" (or, at this point, last week), it's wonderful to see the citizen-journalists and crowdsourced new guardians of information acting just as ridiculously about this supposed John Edwards scandal. As you'll recall, the National Enquirer caught John Edwards sneaking into a hotel late one night to visit former staffer Rielle Hunter and her child. When they confronted him on his way out, he hid in a bathroom. Fox News confirmed the visit. But none of this meets Wikipedia's high standards of notability! You won't find Rielle or the Beverly Hilton even mentioned on the Edwards entry.

Despite the fact that the basic facts of the evening seem to be proven, Wikipedia's power-mad power-users are immediately deleting any and all mention of the John Edwards lovechild scandal the second any other user adds it. You could go over there and add "In July of 2008, Edwards was confronted at a Beverly Hills hotel by National Enquirer reporters searching for evidence of his participation in an extra-martial affair"?all true and verified by more "reliable" sources!?and it wouldn't last two minutes. (Actually you couldn't add that. The entry has been locked.) It's not notable enough for them, apparently. Though this is. And hell, so is this!

But no, the details of the probable end of the political aspirations of one of the 2000s most visible Democratic politicians are just not as notable as the fictional history of the Wookee homeworld.

Man, that's some crazy bias of not allowing edits of the page to add innuendo while those events were still ongoing and yet to be confirmed by those involved....

By the way, now it's been confirmed/admitted to - the info is on his Wiki page....

It would be akin to Wiki allowing the listing the rumours about Trig not being her child....

/the obsession of the rightwing over some man's penis never ends.....

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
wikipedia is a scourge to intellelect. Not only can erroneous information be poised as fact, the moderation of the site is faily bias in some areas.

It could be worse...

 

[PokerGuy]

Seems like real journalism and investigative journalism is crumbling, now you get rehashed AP stories and some soundbytes. There just aren't that many trustworthy sources left.

 

[sapiens74]

lol facts in reporting?

we haven't had that in the US in a long time

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
wikipedia is a scourge to intellelect. Not only can erroneous information be poised as fact, the moderation of the site is faily bias in some areas.

I'm curious - such as?

It's almost a year old, but it is an example link

John Edwards' Wikipedia Page Strangely Love Child-Free
After all this Mickey Kaus blathering about MSM gatekeepers censoring the news and preventing the reader from learning "what happened yesterday" (or, at this point, last week), it's wonderful to see the citizen-journalists and crowdsourced new guardians of information acting just as ridiculously about this supposed John Edwards scandal. As you'll recall, the National Enquirer caught John Edwards sneaking into a hotel late one night to visit former staffer Rielle Hunter and her child. When they confronted him on his way out, he hid in a bathroom. Fox News confirmed the visit. But none of this meets Wikipedia's high standards of notability! You won't find Rielle or the Beverly Hilton even mentioned on the Edwards entry.

Despite the fact that the basic facts of the evening seem to be proven, Wikipedia's power-mad power-users are immediately deleting any and all mention of the John Edwards lovechild scandal the second any other user adds it. You could go over there and add "In July of 2008, Edwards was confronted at a Beverly Hills hotel by National Enquirer reporters searching for evidence of his participation in an extra-martial affair"?all true and verified by more "reliable" sources!?and it wouldn't last two minutes. (Actually you couldn't add that. The entry has been locked.) It's not notable enough for them, apparently. Though this is. And hell, so is this!

But no, the details of the probable end of the political aspirations of one of the 2000s most visible Democratic politicians are just not as notable as the fictional history of the Wookee homeworld.

Man, that's some crazy bias of not allowing edits of the page to add innuendo while those events were still ongoing and yet to be confirmed by those involved....

By the way, now it's been confirmed/admitted to - the info is on his Wiki page....

It would be akin to Wiki allowing the listing the rumours about Trig not being her child....

/the obsession of the rightwing over some man's penis never ends.....

You must have missed the part I just bolded.

I am sure there are other examples, but that is the one I found via a quick google search.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

You just print whatever "facts" you need to get your point across.

Then if you get caught, have a tiny retraction/clarification article buried in the back a few days alter.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
wikipedia is a scourge to intellelect. Not only can erroneous information be poised as fact, the moderation of the site is faily bias in some areas.

I'm curious - such as?

It's almost a year old, but it is an example link

John Edwards' Wikipedia Page Strangely Love Child-Free
After all this Mickey Kaus blathering about MSM gatekeepers censoring the news and preventing the reader from learning "what happened yesterday" (or, at this point, last week), it's wonderful to see the citizen-journalists and crowdsourced new guardians of information acting just as ridiculously about this supposed John Edwards scandal. As you'll recall, the National Enquirer caught John Edwards sneaking into a hotel late one night to visit former staffer Rielle Hunter and her child. When they confronted him on his way out, he hid in a bathroom. Fox News confirmed the visit. But none of this meets Wikipedia's high standards of notability! You won't find Rielle or the Beverly Hilton even mentioned on the Edwards entry.

Despite the fact that the basic facts of the evening seem to be proven, Wikipedia's power-mad power-users are immediately deleting any and all mention of the John Edwards lovechild scandal the second any other user adds it. You could go over there and add "In July of 2008, Edwards was confronted at a Beverly Hills hotel by National Enquirer reporters searching for evidence of his participation in an extra-martial affair"?all true and verified by more "reliable" sources!?and it wouldn't last two minutes. (Actually you couldn't add that. The entry has been locked.) It's not notable enough for them, apparently. Though this is. And hell, so is this!

But no, the details of the probable end of the political aspirations of one of the 2000s most visible Democratic politicians are just not as notable as the fictional history of the Wookee homeworld.

Man, that's some crazy bias of not allowing edits of the page to add innuendo while those events were still ongoing and yet to be confirmed by those involved....

By the way, now it's been confirmed/admitted to - the info is on his Wiki page....

It would be akin to Wiki allowing the listing the rumours about Trig not being her child....

/the obsession of the rightwing over some man's penis never ends.....

You must have missed the part I just bolded.

I am sure there are other examples, but that is the one I found via a quick google search.

Again, that's a report of alleged events - not confirmation of them by the parties involved...

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Let's ban free media, since they used wikipedia.

way to entirely miss the point, but then I have come to expect that of you.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.greenpuppy.com/foley/fnc1.jpg

I see you ascribe to the latter of being reduced to believe media that agrees with our own predisposed world view? kk

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.greenpuppy.com/foley/fnc1.jpg

I see you ascribe to the latter of being reduced to believe media that agrees with our own predisposed world view? kk

That statement would seem to say that you agree Fox News is proactive in offering dis-information....

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
wikipedia is a scourge to intellelect. Not only can erroneous information be poised as fact, the moderation of the site is faily bias in some areas.

:thumbsdown:

Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it deserves a lot of credit for making information more accessible to people than ever before. I'd hardly call it a "scourge to intellelect [sic]." Also, some studies have suggested that Wikipedia is only slightly less accurate than traditional encyclopedias, which are still edited by human beings who are fallible and themselves prone to bias.

The problem isn't Wikipedia -- The problem is people who don't understand that you need to scrutinize any secondary or tertiary source (be it Wikipedia, a traditional encyclopedia such as Britannica, or whatever).

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Again, that's a report of alleged events - not confirmation of them by the parties involved...

So everything within wikipedia has been confirmed by the parties involved??

I won't be able to find any information about 'alleged events' ???

Explain the following quotes to them then:

Critics, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Russ Baker have alleged that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot despite his low pilot aptitude test scores and his irregular attendance.

Alleged, but no proof.

In February 2004, Eric Boehlert in Salon magazine claimed that Bush's cessation of flying in April 1972 and his subsequent refusal to take a physical examination came at the same time the Air Force announced a Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, which, he wrote, was officially launched on April 21, 1972. He further claimed that while the drug testing took years to implement, "as of April 1972, Air National guardsmen knew random drug testing was going to be implemented."[19] Other sources indicate that the U.S. military did not introduce drug testing until the 1980s.[20]

Again, they publish a 'claim' made by a person, and then later admit that others disagree with him.


And yet if you put in the KNOWN fact that Edwards was confronted at the hotel by the National Enquirer, a fact that NO ONE denied at the time, you get your posts deleted because it is an 'alleged event' ??

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Again, that's a report of alleged events - not confirmation of them by the parties involved...

So everything within wikipedia has been confirmed by the parties involved??

I won't be able to find any information about 'alleged events' ???

Explain the following quotes to them then:

Critics, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Russ Baker have alleged that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot despite his low pilot aptitude test scores and his irregular attendance.

Alleged, but no proof.

In February 2004, Eric Boehlert in Salon magazine claimed that Bush's cessation of flying in April 1972 and his subsequent refusal to take a physical examination came at the same time the Air Force announced a Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, which, he wrote, was officially launched on April 21, 1972. He further claimed that while the drug testing took years to implement, "as of April 1972, Air National guardsmen knew random drug testing was going to be implemented."[19] Other sources indicate that the U.S. military did not introduce drug testing until the 1980s.[20]

Again, they publish a 'claim' made by a person, and then later admit that others disagree with him.


And yet if you put in the KNOWN fact that Edwards was confronted at the hotel by the National Enquirer, a fact that NO ONE denied at the time, you get your posts deleted because it is an 'alleged event' ??

That's funny, because I as I have posted - that information is on his Edward's Wiki page....

And about the quotes - are you claiming that Terry McAuliffe and Russ Baker and Eric Boehlert didn't make those statements?

 

[Mxylplyx]

I missed the days when news was something that you could consume in 20 minutes each day and be done with it. The business of news has become so large that it is becoming more entertainment than news.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
wikipedia is a scourge to intellelect. Not only can erroneous information be poised as fact, the moderation of the site is faily bias in some areas.

:thumbsdown:

Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it deserves a lot of credit for making information more accessible to people than ever before. I'd hardly call it a "scourge to intellelect [sic]." Also, some studies have suggested that Wikipedia is only slightly less accurate than traditional encyclopedias, which are still edited by human beings who are fallible and themselves prone to bias.

The problem isn't Wikipedia -- The problem is people who don't understand that you need to scrutinize any secondary or tertiary source (be it Wikipedia, a traditional encyclopedia such as Britannica, or whatever).

This.

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I missed the days when news was something that you could consume in 20 minutes each day and be done with it. The business of news has become so large that it is becoming more entertainment than news.

And this.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
That's funny, because I as I have posted - that information is on his Edward's Wiki page....

And about the quotes - are you claiming that Terry McAuliffe and Russ Baker and Eric Boehlert didn't make those statements?

Stop being an idiot.

Either you are ignoring or missed the fact that the article I linked too was from last June and at that time there was no mention of the Edwards affair on the Edwards page.

Here is the time line to make it simple.

John Edwards is confronted at the Hotel by the National Enquirer. The Enquirer reports the story and other news organizations confirm that they did indeed confront Edwards at the hotel.

Random person posts a section to the Edwards page about said confrontation.

Mod/editor/power poster or whoever removes said post from the page and then locked the page.

BTW your last line backs up the accusation of bias perfectly.
The fact that statements by McAuliffe and Boehlert that have no factual basis were allowed to stay on the site, but an incident that was backed up by several outside sources was not allowed to stay on the site is certainly proof that there is at least some bias going on at wikipedia.

This is not to say that the site is 100% biased. Instead this is just an example of individual bias and the incorrect use of power/authority.