What's more, the idea that an outlet "vets their sources" is fuckin' laughable
Tim "The Beanie Man" Pool is the first person I've ever heard claim that you need 3 independent sources for anything. I genuinely can't imagine anyone but him doing that. Absolutely no one working at the corporate media would even consider making the attempt.
They didn't nail him for lying until they nailed him for stealing someone else's material. Key point: taking from another journalist is a more imperative sin than just lying.
When the hell have they faced consequences for making shit up? Hell, it's part of their fucking job. If your boss tells you to go along with the shit that he made up, then you're not risking anything. Not like you would be anyway.
Anonymous sources are real people.
The bar to be granted anonymity, at least in local news, is high.
Only when publishing their name could put them physical harm or they’re facing another serious form of retribution for speaking publicly.
So, please, by all means, tell me why a journalist would risk ruining their career and tarnishing their industry by making up a source.
Never mind that - what about the much more subtle use of formerly-banned coloured adjectives and adverbs? The sort that influences opionion/triggers an emotional response? That shit used to be a BIG no-no for reporters, and fit only for editorial opinion pieces and students of creative writing/poetry.
Russian collusion.
Ukraine scandal.
Every single piece ever written about feminism.
Fuck off.
Jazmine Barnes, Jussie Smollett, Covington, Erica Thomas, Dreadlocks Girl.
And that's just scratching the surface of 2019. One year.
Tim "The Beanie Man" Pool is the first person I've ever heard claim that you need 3 independent sources for anything. I genuinely can't imagine anyone but him doing that. Absolutely no one working at the corporate media would even consider making the attempt.
Contrary to popular belief, journalists have no shred of honesty, decency or humanity.
Just yesterday, I was reading an article that made the exact same argument about Rolling Stone/UVA Jackie.
The most effective lies are told under oath.
So you're saying they're Communists.
I don't know, why not ask Jayson Blair, who did it all the time but didn't get caught at it until after he was nailed for plagiarism.
They didn't nail him for lying until they nailed him for stealing someone else's material. Key point: taking from another journalist is a more imperative sin than just lying.
When the hell have they faced consequences for making shit up? Hell, it's part of their fucking job. If your boss tells you to go along with the shit that he made up, then you're not risking anything. Not like you would be anyway.
gee I wonder how that belief became popular
Daily reminder that the most prestigious award in journalism is named after a tabloid owner that used fake news to start a war with Spain
She continues:
This part I believe, but local news is generally much better than the corporate propaganda masquerading as 'national news media'.
"By Any Means Necessary" is one of their slogans.
Because the journalist in question is a true believer who thinks that they'll be hailed as the hero who stopped the rise of a new Hitler?
No, they source people who make stuff up
Well, I'm glad that this one in finally holding the Fourth Estate to some standards.
Look for the Fourth Estate to become much smaller if it ever catches on.
Never mind that - what about the much more subtle use of formerly-banned coloured adjectives and adverbs? The sort that influences opionion/triggers an emotional response? That shit used to be a BIG no-no for reporters, and fit only for editorial opinion pieces and students of creative writing/poetry.