Fake News Clarification: Volume One

[Aexodus]

Mate everything points to an islamist attack, he shouted allahu akbar. I don’t know what will convince you. Even the authorities are treating it as a terrorist attack.

But never mind, I guess only ‘dudes with rage’ target police officers, take a woman hostage, and get radicalised in prison (which is quite common due to the large muslim prison population)

[Basil II the B.S]

Putin apparently killed another journalist but then resurrected him the next day.
Putin 1
Jesus 0
Lying Liberal media -5

[Derpy Hooves]

Putin apparently killed another journalist but then resurrected him the next day.
Putin 1
Jesus 0
Lying Liberal media -5

Putin actually tried killing him, and Ukrainian security forces faked his death to capture the assassin(s) like in Dark Knight. The trick worked

[Phier]

Its like why bother reading the speculative and biased tripe that passes for news these days.

[The spartan]

Its like why bother reading the speculative and biased tripe that passes for news these days.

Because they are out to get you, man.

[Aexodus]

Huh

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[NorseThing]

Of course the Huff post link (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0bbb7a0e032d3) then mentioned that it did not really matter because the private moment was followed by a meeting with many people. Not really fake news. At least not to my understanding of what is fake news. Your post gets closer to my definition of fake news though. Selective pictures and headlines that are true in the narrowest sense but not giving a broader understanding of the story beyond the narrow 'editorial' objective. I am using 'editorial' is the sense of opinion.

[Aexodus]

Yeah pretty much, it’s the selective headlines which be honest, is all most people see.

It’s more the hypocrisy of the first two articles really.

[Aexodus]

So apparently the girl on the TIME magazine was never separated from her parents.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[NorseThing]

Even if separated, the time cover is misleading because the crying little girl was never at the feet of Pres. Trump. I am certain the editors that put this together think they are so so clever. Unless I am mistaken, this photo shopping to make editorial points was never learned at any journalism school.

Of course we all know the editors check and verify all stories, especially if it agrees with their own personal political perspective so that they do not make a poor impression with their personal opinions. Yeah, right!

[Diocle]

Even if separated, the time cover is misleading because the crying little girl was never at the feet of Pres. Trump. I am certain the editors that put this together think they are so so clever. Unless I am mistaken, this photo shopping to make editorial points was never learned at any journalism school.

Of course we all know the editors check and verify all stories, especially if it agrees with their own personal political perspective so that they do not make a poor impression with their personal opinions. Yeah, right!

The photo you posted is actually the quintessence of the mediatic Leftism in all its disturbing miserable idiocy:

[The spartan]

The photo you posted is actually the quintessence of the mediatic Leftism in all its disturbing miserable idiocy:

It is easy to make people look like fools when you are telling them what they are saying.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/im...ver-separated/

[Aexodus]

It is easy to make people look like fools when you are telling them what they are saying.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/im...ver-separated/

’mostly false’ hahaha sure. I guess they were only partially fake news then

Couldnt bring themselves to call it a lie, even the fake news says its fake news, does that make it very fake news?

[The spartan]

’mostly false’ hahaha sure. I guess they were only partially fake news then

Couldnt bring themselves to call it a lie, even the fake news says its fake news, does that make it very fake news?

Did you not read the article? They explain the answer.

Media outlets falsely reported that a photograph of a crying toddler depicted a small girl separated from her mother at the border.

A photograph of a toddler girl crying at the border, taken by photographer John Moore on 12 June 2018, became virally popular and later was used for a 'TIME' magazine cover.

Contrary to claims, media outlets have consistently reported that the girl was never separated from her mother; that information was reiterated when U.S. Customs and Border Patrol stated that the pair had not been separated.

[Infidel144]

Snopes does not seem to mention Time's correction:
"Correction (Posted June 19): The original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she was taken from the scene. The girl was not carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents; her mother picked her up and the two were taken away together."
http://time.com/longform/john-moore-.../?xid=tcoshare


First outlet Snopes mentions in the WaPo:
It seems the WaPo stealth edited their article, waiting at least 12 hours before noting it in a clarification:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/22/wa...me-correction/
originally read:
“Time magazine ran a cover that used one of the images that has been most resonant in this past week, taken of a young girl crying as her mother was patted down by a Border Patrol agent before the two were separated.”
changed to:
“Time magazine’s cover used one of the images that has been most resonant in the past week, taken of a young girl crying as her mother was patted down by a Border Patrol agent before the two were detained.”
also changing the headline.
After at least 12 hours the clarification was added:
"The initial version of this story said the child depicted on Time's cover had been separated from her mother, based on the magazine's account. As The Washington Post and others have since reported, the child was not separated from her mother during their encounter with a Border Patrol agent. The story has been updated."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e02e7cf32850

[The spartan]

Snopes does not seem to mention Time's correction:
"Correction (Posted June 19): The original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she was taken from the scene. The girl was not carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents; her mother picked her up and the two were taken away together."
http://time.com/longform/john-moore-.../?xid=tcoshare


First outlet Snopes mentions in the WaPo:
It seems the WaPo stealth edited their article, waiting at least 12 hours before noting it in a clarification:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/22/wa...me-correction/
originally read:
“Time magazine ran a cover that used one of the images that has been most resonant in this past week, taken of a young girl crying as her mother was patted down by a Border Patrol agent before the two were separated.”
changed to:
“Time magazine’s cover used one of the images that has been most resonant in the past week, taken of a young girl crying as her mother was patted down by a Border Patrol agent before the two were detained.”
also changing the headline.
After at least 12 hours the clarification was added:
"The initial version of this story said the child depicted on Time's cover had been separated from her mother, based on the magazine's account. As The Washington Post and others have since reported, the child was not separated from her mother during their encounter with a Border Patrol agent. The story has been updated."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e02e7cf32850

What is your point here?

[Infidel144]

What is your point here?

Lets see, Snopes claims the WaPo did not report that the girl was separated from her mother.


I just documented that the WaPo, contra snopes assertion, did report that.




Hmm... Should I, like a fool, blindly trust Snopes? Or maybe I should look into it a bit more...

Hmmm... because It is easy to make people look like fools when you are telling them what they want to hear.

[Genghis Skahn]

It is easy to make people look like fools when you are telling them what they are saying.

What is your point here?

Uhhh...Likewise, what's your point here? Times(and then later other media outlets) issued the retraction over the fact that the girl wasn't separated from her mother, ergo the photo was fake news. What's to debate here? What great mystery did the snopes article reveal? What am I not understanding?

[The spartan]

Yes, well it looks like Snopes was wrong about there never being a misreporting about the girl being separated from her mother, and that article hasn't been updated in days so that is disappointing. To be fair to "the media", the Times correction went out well before Dailycaller's article and Diocle post, and not to mention that all "media" is Times and WaPo nor do they double down when wrong. It's a shame about Snopes, though.

Also, I have not been telling people what they are saying.

[Infidel144]

Also, I have not been telling people what they are saying.

I fail to see the point of this comment.