One week after ABC's Syria video screw-up, the network still hasn't explained how it happened - CNN

This was just one recent example, The "reputable" news puts out a story and video that's not vetted in any way, they get called on it, apologize and it's over. Meanwhile it's already put into the public's heads as truth to those that don't see or hear their "apology" later on. It happens more than we can see I'm sure.

"Reliable" sources...."whistle blowers"....my "sources" tell me etc....
Steve

Interesting, accurate and a good point of contention.

BUT then again, that video was NOT the story, was it ? The story remains accuretly reported. We seem to dwell on this stuff and look right past the real news

The point is they were making it, the video, a part of the "story", or news if you will, reporting as fact the video was actually happening at the border. Do you really think if ABC wasn't called out on it they would've come clean? That is my point....how often does it happen with all media/news sources? More often than one might think is my guess.
Steve

"Operation Mockingbird"
$$$Millions wasted, when a leak from the right place, to the right journalist, at the right time, would have sufficed?
Thats all it takes to disinform, and the more the story is denied, the more it is believed.
The Russians are absolute masters of this.
Watch the Russian News channel 'RT.'
So clever comrades!

Well, we will have to agree to disagree.

The story, the news was about and in reference to the Kurds being attacked by Turkey as I recall. Since I do not rely on footage, but instead the reading of the facts, for me, the story was 100% accurate and reported well by the NY Time and all other media.

Someone made an error in that video, obviously but it did not detract from the story itself which was true and factual and that, I think, was the point of the thread.

Not defending anyone here.....I understand from reading that at least one head as rolled and more to come. An admission of the mistake and apology made (more than many ever do)...but again, it did not detract from the story.

Television can be very misleading as I said.

It did not seem to be an intentional misdirection like with many other stories from these "factual" news sources.

I enjoy the unmentionable online news and believe most of what that outfit publishes, especially the crime news and obituaries.

A free press is necessary
 

A free press is absolutely necessary for the democracy to survive in what we know as the United States of America. Our forefathers knew that and thus put it in the First Amendment. From time to time it comes under attack and perhaps no more often than in recent times. It’s still news and not “fake news” just because you don’t agree. If you want “fake news” go to some of the many social media sites. We should all learn to agree to disagree. As some have noted, if you really want to follow the news, you should get the news from more than one source. As others have noted there is a difference between opinion or “spin” on an issue and the quote “news”. Finally, as some have noted in this Thread, the major news media get the “news” right almost all the time with a rare mistake along the way. Regardless, of your preference to certain news media, a free press is necessary to sustain our democracy as we know it.

But the current "mainstream" press is anything but a free press. It is the propaganda arm of one party, like Izvestia and Pravda were for the communist party in the USSR.

They may bend LEFT for British news, but not so much for our news. I sometimes watch the newscasters from Singapore at the early evening hour and they are very good. well at least I think so :).

There was a time not that long ago that you could watch just about any news network and trust them to tell the truth and fact check what they reported. You never knew the political affiliation, if any, of the "anchors". Did Walter Cronkite ever give less than you expected from him? Not in my opinion. Print and TV news editors were proud of the fact that they were tough on their own reporters and would not let their reporters write the kinds of news articles that routinely get reported today based on "anonymous sources", or "sources near the president", etc. Journalism is mostly dead today. I try to watch TV "news programs" with a slant that I dislike, just to see what the other side is saying, but I don't last very long. Their blatant bias is too much for me. And it's not much better on the side that I prefer to watch either.

Is it a left leaning bias or FACTS, hmmm! we must ask "the wizzard"

Unless one fact checks the news, it's hard to say if it's believable. Does one reject the news, if it goes against their pre-conceived beliefs? We all know of the right and left, cable, pundit "news" which is more opinion, from none experts, then it is real news. If I hear or read a news story, and I'm interested in it, I will then do my own research, which 98% of the time panned out to be true.

Excellent post Mr. Franklin! Almost all, no probably closer to MOST, news stories have a basis in fact, but they are skewed by which political party is providing an analysis.

FACT CHECK EVERYTHING.

Opinion Hosts!!!