I'm getting a 'Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else' message when I click on the link in your message. I can see the summary - what did the link take you to?
Taken down for violating editorial standards. That’s what standards are for. The non-legacy media, such as self styled “journalists” and influencers, AKA Twitter Twits, in X/Twitter generally have no standards at all. For example, the dozens of Twitter Twits that incorrectly blamed and named a former Capitol Police officer as the J6 pipe bomber nearly 100 percent have not corrected their asinine tweets or even apologized to the woman after it was found that the pipe bomber was not her but was some election denying wingnut. The non-legacy “media” is responsible for far more disinformation/misinformation than the so called legacy media. I’ve been a long-time critic of media bias in how the news is presented, but get by the bias and you’ll usually get to the actual facts.
I'm getting a 'Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else' message when I click on the link in your message. I can see the summary - what did the link take you to?
Looks like they took it down like Aloha flagged. Not surprised, it was pretty wild.
Taken down for violating editorial standards. That’s what standards are for. The non-legacy media, such as self styled “journalists” and influencers, AKA Twitter Twits, in X/Twitter generally have no standards at all. For example, the dozens of Twitter Twits that incorrectly blamed and named a former Capitol Police officer as the J6 pipe bomber nearly 100 percent have not corrected their asinine tweets or even apologized to the woman after it was found that the pipe bomber was not her but was some election denying wingnut. The non-legacy “media” is responsible for far more disinformation/misinformation than the so called legacy media. I’ve been a long-time critic of media bias in his the news is presented, but get by the bias and you’ll usually get to the actual facts.
How does such garbage get published in the first place? Some CNN editor signs off on it. The only reason they reneged was because of the backlash.
Can't do much about the click-bait and radical posters on Meta, X, etc. because of the First Amendment.
Taken down for violating editorial standards. That’s what standards are for. The non-legacy media, such as self styled “journalists” and influencers, AKA Twitter Twits, in X/Twitter generally have no standards at all. For example, the dozens of Twitter Twits that incorrectly blamed and named a former Capitol Police officer as the J6 pipe bomber nearly 100 percent have not corrected their asinine tweets or even apologized to the woman after it was found that the pipe bomber was not her but was some election denying wingnut. The non-legacy “media” is responsible for far more disinformation/misinformation than the so called legacy media. I’ve been a long-time critic of media bias in his the news is presented, but get by the bias and you’ll usually get to the actual facts.
Whereby the boards last true “conservative” offers a full throated defense of CNN.
Taken down for violating editorial standards. That’s what standards are for. The non-legacy media, such as self styled “journalists” and influencers, AKA Twitter Twits, in X/Twitter generally have no standards at all. For example, the dozens of Twitter Twits that incorrectly blamed and named a former Capitol Police officer as the J6 pipe bomber nearly 100 percent have not corrected their asinine tweets or even apologized to the woman after it was found that the pipe bomber was not her but was some election denying wingnut. The non-legacy “media” is responsible for far more disinformation/misinformation than the so called legacy media. I’ve been a long-time critic of media bias in his the news is presented, but get by the bias and you’ll usually get to the actual facts.
How does such garbage get published in the first place? Some CNN editor signs off on it. The only reason they reneged was because of the backlash.
Can't do much about the click-bait and radical posters on Meta, X, etc. because of the First Amendment.
The problem wasn't in the article itself. The problem was the tweet. I doubt the social media guy has to get editorial approval for every tweet. Well, maybe he does now.
@jdb What's your go-to news source?
It depends on the topic. For example, if I am trying to get updates on Oil prices, I'm going to a specific resource.
To start a day, I tend to choose WSJ or News Nation. The Hill and Politico are usually decent for political news.
Taken down for violating editorial standards. That’s what standards are for. The non-legacy media, such as self styled “journalists” and influencers, AKA Twitter Twits, in X/Twitter generally have no standards at all. For example, the dozens of Twitter Twits that incorrectly blamed and named a former Capitol Police officer as the J6 pipe bomber nearly 100 percent have not corrected their asinine tweets or even apologized to the woman after it was found that the pipe bomber was not her but was some election denying wingnut. The non-legacy “media” is responsible for far more disinformation/misinformation than the so called legacy media. I’ve been a long-time critic of media bias in his the news is presented, but get by the bias and you’ll usually get to the actual facts.
How does such garbage get published in the first place? Some CNN editor signs off on it. The only reason they reneged was because of the backlash.
Can't do much about the click-bait and radical posters on Meta, X, etc. because of the First Amendment.
The problem wasn't in the article itself. The problem was the tweet. I doubt the social media guy has to get editorial approval for every tweet. Well, maybe he does now.
Yes and no. Tweets (can we just say posts since its no longer Twitter) can largely be a problem, but even this article was quite flawed (fairly certain the tweet was a subtitle). Hence the changes below:
A previous version of this story included a summary that does not reflect the gravity of the incident, thereby breaching the editorial standards we require for all our reporting. It therefore has been changed.
Taken down for violating editorial standards. That’s what standards are for. The non-legacy media, such as self styled “journalists” and influencers, AKA Twitter Twits, in X/Twitter generally have no standards at all. For example, the dozens of Twitter Twits that incorrectly blamed and named a former Capitol Police officer as the J6 pipe bomber nearly 100 percent have not corrected their asinine tweets or even apologized to the woman after it was found that the pipe bomber was not her but was some election denying wingnut. The non-legacy “media” is responsible for far more disinformation/misinformation than the so called legacy media. I’ve been a long-time critic of media bias in his the news is presented, but get by the bias and you’ll usually get to the actual facts.
How does such garbage get published in the first place? Some CNN editor signs off on it. The only reason they reneged was because of the backlash.
Can't do much about the click-bait and radical posters on Meta, X, etc. because of the First Amendment.
which is why as bad and biased as legacy media can be at times...it is still much better than the alternative.
Taken down for violating editorial standards. That’s what standards are for. The non-legacy media, such as self styled “journalists” and influencers, AKA Twitter Twits, in X/Twitter generally have no standards at all. For example, the dozens of Twitter Twits that incorrectly blamed and named a former Capitol Police officer as the J6 pipe bomber nearly 100 percent have not corrected their asinine tweets or even apologized to the woman after it was found that the pipe bomber was not her but was some election denying wingnut. The non-legacy “media” is responsible for far more disinformation/misinformation than the so called legacy media. I’ve been a long-time critic of media bias in his the news is presented, but get by the bias and you’ll usually get to the actual facts.
How does such garbage get published in the first place? Some CNN editor signs off on it. The only reason they reneged was because of the backlash.
Can't do much about the click-bait and radical posters on Meta, X, etc. because of the First Amendment.
The problem wasn't in the article itself. The problem was the tweet. I doubt the social media guy has to get editorial approval for every tweet. Well, maybe he does now.
Yes and no. Tweets (can we just say posts since its no longer Twitter) can largely be a problem, but even this article was quite flawed (fairly certain the tweet was a subtitle). Hence the changes below:
A previous version of this story included a summary that does not reflect the gravity of the incident, thereby breaching the editorial standards we require for all our reporting. It therefore has been changed.
So the original lede was substandard by normal journalistic practices, but it wasn't nearly as bad as the tweet.
Original:
Two Pennsylvania men on Saturday followed the route taken by thousands as they crossed the George Washington Bridge into New York City. But less than an hour later, their trajectory took a dark turn as they were arrested for throwing homemade bombs during an anti-Muslim protest outside of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s home.
That's how you might start this article out if it was a feature retrospective or something. But for breaking news, you want your lede to just give you the top points bang, bang, bang.
But the tweet went wrong in a much bigger way by actually being deceptive about the contents of the article.
@jdb What's your go-to news source?
It depends on the topic. For example, if I am trying to get updates on Oil prices, I'm going to a specific resource.
To start a day, I tend to choose WSJ or News Nation. The Hill and Politico are usually decent for political news.
Agreed on all counts. The Hill is really good. I also like Reuters, BBC News, MarketWatch and CNBC. It's a little trashy but I also check out the New York Post. Occasionally I'll drop into CBS or ABC, rarely CNN.
I don't know who writes the social media posts for a lot of these media. But accuracy never seems to be the point. Same as that one we talked about from the WSJ and rotisserie chicken.... on at article that had nothing to do with rotisserie chicken.
I think most people only get their news from reading the posts, never even clicking the article. So it's just a goal to drive engagement (or enragement).... Hell it's probably all AI produced, anyway.
When viewing legacy or non-legacy media, ask yourself if you are seeing opinion or fact. Entertainment or news. If it's opinion without facts, ignore it. If it's supposedly a fact-based report, what are their sources? Some left-leaning media and some right-leaning media are fastidious about lining up their sources, so the basic premise will be sound even if it's "spun" more than just a little.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451