When you read the paper, do you feel like you're floating in a choppy sea in a row boat, and are nervously casting glances over your shoulder at the darkening sky?

 

You aren't paranoid if they really are all out to get you:


"
Three CNN staffers resigned after the network retracted a story tying a top President Trump ally to a Russian investment bank.

Thomas Frank, the author of the story, Eric Lichtblau, an editor in the CNN investigative unit that ran the story and Lex Haris, who oversaw the unit, have all left CNN, the network reported Monday.

The story connected Anthony Scaramucci, a top proponent of Trump, to a Russian investment fund run by a bank controlled by the Kremlin.

An internal CNN investigation reportedly found that normal editorial processes weren't followed in the story's editing and publication. Only one anonymous source was used in the story, and typical parts of CNN's workflow, such as fact checkers, were reportedly not utilized before publication.

CNN, which Trump has frequently derided as "fake news," added strict rules for its Russia coverage following the retraction.
"That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted. Links to the story have been disabled. CNN apologizes to Mr. Scaramucci."

A source close to CNN told BuzzFeed that the story's publication was a "massive, massive f--- up and people will be disciplined."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/th...russia-story-retraction/ar-BBDiEMf?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Yes, they accepted responsibility nicely.

 

I agree.

 

I disagree. They did run it even after their internal team "expressed concerns" about it. That's bad. They did retract it though, which is "good", except that it might have been done in self-interest to keep from being sued. I am impressed that they had the three people involved resign.

I'm not so impressed with Reza Aslan or Kathy Griffin - two others associated with CNN that have been let go recently. That makes three incidents where people had to be fired for what they said about Trump in the last couple months. That seems to me that the culture of CNN is made up of people who are against Trump, and just shedding the people who get caught doesn't really solve the problem of bias against the President.

 

I expect a higher level of journalistic integrity from a journalist that from a politician or a used car salesman. I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

The problem though is the media isn't supposed to *appear* to be biased. If people believe what they post is because of bias, and not just reporting facts, people who don't agree with their politics won't trust them, and that defeats their reason for being.

 

Primarily because I used to think of CNN tried to be a real news source like the BBC. Breitbart and InfoWars aren't really news sources, imo, other than providing stories you otherwise hear about. Fox News? It was made as a right-wing biased counterpart to the left-wing biased msm. Fox seems pretty much on par with the msm.

The point is I'd hold each of these sources accountable to what I think they are trying to hold themselves to.

 

It's nice to know I can count on you to evaluate the appropriateness of which news agencies I look at

However, saying you'll look at where I get my news in the future isn't really valid. Since I know you'll be watching, I might deliberately change my newsreading patterns. I've probably posted more links to news than most people here, what you should do is take all my links for the past year and make a table of what sources they were quoted from. Then you'd have an unbiased sample of what my habits are - or at least of what I deem is postworthy.

Of course, much like getting up before 11 a.m., for someone who's in the Left Wing, that's probably too much work, so I won't hold anyone to anything.