New York times retracts part of Russian hack claim

[mr friendly guy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKJhDasH1hE

For those who don't like Jimmy Dore, I have tracked down the original NYT article.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/u ... llies.html

Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

This just goes to show how much fact tracking mainstream media does.

I have said it before, there are some topics I know a decent amount on, and I see mainstream media just blatantly wrong on these topics. What about topics I don't know too much about? Am I to assume they will just happen to be right on these other topics?

[Ace Pace]

Please note that this retraction is not a very significant one. In this case, they're saying this assessment was made by 4 of the major intel agencies. Who cares what the geo spatial agency or the NRO thinks about it, it's not a VISINT matter.

[mr friendly guy]

They couldn't even check the other 13 agencies?

While this is somewhat more highly publicised than others because of the Russia hacking scandal, its quite telling they don't fact check. Its not just the New York Times, CNN had employees resigned after failing to fact check their own story.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/media/c ... index.html

Some of the stories published by mainstream media could be refuted within two minutes of google. I can give examples if people like.

My point is, journalists are presumably paid to report facts to us the readers. It shouldn't be my place to fact check the journalists and in effect doing their job for them. Most people don't have the time to fact check every single news story people may be interested in. Two minutes multiplied by several stories makes it time consuming. This makes me even more sceptical of what I read from mainstream media, well more sceptical than my usual self anyway.

This is just more examples of why mainstream media is crap.

[K. A. Pital]

I think the adjustment was also not entirely insignificant - the article tried to present some sort of unanimous opinion, where in fact there was not one, and many bodies were not involved.

[Ace Pace]

I think the adjustment was also not entirely insignificant - the article tried to present some sort of unanimous opinion, where in fact there was not one, and many bodies were not involved.

Lets again, be more precise. There were two public IC reports. One pre election that was confirmed by all 17 agencies. There was another report published in 2017 that was not confirmed by all 17 agencies.

If we also want to be more precise, most of the agencies "left out" are irrelevant to an investigation relying mostly on signal intelligence and human sources. With all my love to people working on spy sats or map making, they're kinda irrelevent to these reports.

[Joun_Lord]

Right or wrong this and shtuff like this will just continue to confirm peoples biases about the media being corrupt or false just like how anytime a cops shoots a mentally ill person or minority it confirms all cops are thugs and anytime a Doctor hurts or kills someone it shows that all Doctors are incompetent bastards more interested in money then helping people. This despite probably an overwhelming majority of news factoids, cops, and Docs probably aren't that way. Of course one can argue that the fact they keep failing over and over is a damn good reason to be hihgly suspect or even not trust them because of the power they hold and how badly it effects someone when they fuck up. The media controls how we view the world and people, the police literally have our lives and freedoms in their hands, and Doctors keep us healthy and alive. When they fuck up it effects lives.

On media topics that I know a teensy tiny aboot that the media seems to get wrong alot is firearms. Of course the basic fuck-ups of terminology like calling magazines clips and adding assault to every goddamn thing that looks somewhat modern. Reporters handling firearms and flagging the shit out of people while having their fingers on the triggers. Misidentifying firearms leading to the not all that inaccurate joke among the gun community that according to the media every long gun is an AR-15 and every pistol is a Glock. Saying "AR" of the AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle.

I'm sure there is plenty I miss with statistics and the like because I'm not exactly huge on guns but it bothers me that they can't even get basic terminology right while trying to report on it. I mean freaking google exists for a reason.

[SCRawl]

This "17 intelligence agencies" talking point was always stupid. For example, that list includes the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which is the principal provider of geospatial intelligence (source: LA Times). Do you really think that these guys signed off on Russia's hacking, and if they did, it had any meaningful effect?

No, the meaningful consensus was always there, which is all that matters.

[mr friendly guy]

The point of posting this article is not to say Russia didn't do it, (I have already stated by opinion that we need to wait for the evidence to be revealed and not because intelligence agency said it), but that the mainstream media couldn't even fact check. I mean can't they just ask the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency for their official word on Russian hacking allegation?

The only reason they are taking some heat for their incompetence is that there is attention paid to them due to the rhetoric of the Trump administration, and the rise of so called "New media."

[The Romulan Republic]

They should correct any errors, obviously, but its regrettable that even a relatively inconsequential error will then be seized on by the partisan as proof that any allegations are "fake news", to bolster the Trump Administration's despotic war on the free press.

[mr friendly guy]

Its not the magnitude of the error, its the fact its easy to check and they can't even be bothered doing it. I mean seriously, can't they just request a statement from the other 13 departments to confirm?

What's the point of a free press if its not competent as well? The guys making up fake news are also "free" as well, ie no government interfered with their ability to publish when they wrote those bullshit stories. Actually a better question is, what's a difference between a media outlet beholden to Vladimir Putin, vs one beholden to some rich dude with their own agenda, lets say Rupert Murdoch. If they are both inaccurate, why should the fact that its "free" make one better than the other.

I am being generous here in assuming this mistake is due to incompetence and laziness, rather than the press already decided what the agenda is, and then going out of their way to find facts which fit their narrative and ignoring things which don't.

[The Romulan Republic]

Your insinuation that "the press" (as if its a single homogenous entity with a single agenda) may have deliberately creating a fake narrative about Trump is treading awfully close to simply regurgitating the White House line which is being used to justify things like describing the press as the enemy of the American people, and restricting their access to White House briefings.

Did the NYT fuck up? Apparently. Is it good that they corrected that? Yes.

Should this be used to infer some larger conclusion about the validity of the press in general or the allegations against Trump and his Administration? No.

That's all I'm trying to say.

And there is a huge difference between a press beholden to a single despot, and a press devoted to various wealthy private interests. Neither is desirable, but one has a monopoly on information, backed by the power of the state, and the other does not.

False equivalencies like this are a huge part of what has helped to "normalize" Trump and his actions.

[mr friendly guy]

Your insinuation that "the press" (as if its a single homogenous entity with a single agenda) may have deliberately creating a fake narrative about Trump is treading awfully close to simply regurgitating the White House line which is being used to justify things like describing the press as the enemy of the American people, and restricting their access to White House briefings.

Then I will list western media (not limited to US media) which I have found utter rubbish in their fact checking if they are not outright spinning a narrative which would make fake news proud. CNN, BBC, Washington "WMDs in Iraq" Post. I also saw a hilarious fuck up by TIME, but since I rarely read them, it could just be a once off. I rarely read WaPo either, but when you espouse the WMD line so many times, they deserve a special mention.

I mean a CNN associated network couldn't tell the difference between Edward Snowden and Edward Scissorhands. Yes, I am referring to the fictional character played by Johnny Depp. Give me time and I am sure I can find a few more major ones.

Coupled with the fact that a lot of the press regurgitates someone else's articles (as long as they give reference to the source its ok), particularly if its on a foreign country where a particular media source may not have a reporter at the moment and you can see how bullshit starts spreading.

Did the NYT fuck up? Apparently. Is it good that they corrected that? Yes.

This is not in dispute that they fucked up or its good they corrected. What I am pointing out is that it can't be that hard to just ring or email these other intelligence agencies to confirm.

Lets not even go into the fact that it could be too late when the correction occurs because people may not read the retraction.

Should this be used to infer some larger conclusion about the validity of the press in general or the allegations against Trump and his Administration? No.

In regards to the validity of the press, this example should not BY ITSELF do so. However this is just another example of incompetence if not downright malice of media outlets. This one is easy to use because even they admitted they fucked up.

Now my views on the administration are there for all to see on this board. Trump is NOT EXPOSING them with truth most of the time. He is merely giving them a taste of their own medicine. He is turning out to be a more convincing bullshitter than mainstream media. If irony could be tasted, it would be delicious. What Trump calls fake news, a lot of American "new media" just calls them corporate media. I think non western countries call them western media. Western media is more inclusive because it adds in bullshit agencies like BBC which are government owned.

And there is a huge difference between a press beholden to a single despot, and a press devoted to various wealthy private interests. Neither is desirable, but one has a monopoly on information, backed by the power of the state, and the other does not.

Firstly you're wrong about one having a monopoly on information. Unless you're in North Korea. Even states with their own state backed media eg Russia which was mentioned earlier allows broadcasting by foreign sources. China does the same, although they occasionally censor parts. However its enough for people watching to get a sense that these news report a different narrative from their own state backed media.

Secondly, factually incorrect information is still factually incorrect no matter who reports it. The fact one may have more resources to lie doesn't really play into it. Especially when other factors come into it. Western media does much better propaganda than countries which could just censor to offset their "lack of resources".

False equivalencies like this are a huge part of what has helped to "normalize" Trump and his actions.

This just illustrates the problem with your thinking. No matter how much the free press lies or makes mistakes, hey at least its not backed by the power of the state. Literally when Chinese citizens complain about bias coverage including photos which just so happen to edit out parts CNN doesn't want to show, its eventually met by replies about at least our media is free wah wah. What that has to do with your reporting being false is known only western media apologists, but people just buy this red herring.

Meanwhile when a state backed news agency like RT can humiliate the Washington Post (you know you suck when Putin tv can humiliate you), its just hand waved away. Because FREEDOMTM.
*****************************************************************************
Is the Trump administration bad? You betcha. Aside from some things like scrapping TPP, he is mostly bad.
Is Trump exposing the mainstream media? Not in the usual sense of the word. His administration is lying just like they are. He is for some reason more convincing in his lies.
Is some media outlets getting a taste of its own medicine? Yes. Just watch a CNN reporter complaing the Trump administration stirring up hatred against the media.
Am I enjoying the irony of this. Goes and grabs the metaphorical popcorn. Hell yeah.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well I'm glad you take such pleasure in a Presidential Administration openly attempting to undermine the free press.

I kind of get the sense from your post that you're one of those people who tends to regard "Western Media" as a single, homogenous corrupt entity, and tends to assume that it is in the wrong (it often is inaccurate, but no more, I think, than non-Western media).

[mr friendly guy]

Well I'm glad you take such pleasure in a Presidential Administration openly attempting to undermine the free press.

Undermine mainstream media yes. Seriously, 2 douchebags are fighting. Whoever wins, people who aren't douchebags are going to benefit, most of the time anyway.

Undermining the press in general, not specifically, no. Because these days with the rise of youtube thankfully we do have other sources of news. Granted they are also vulnerable to their own agenda as well, but there are some youtube channels which do a good job on their topic.

I kind of get the sense from your post that you're one of those people who tends to regard "Western Media" as a single, homogenous corrupt entity, and tends to assume that it is in the wrong (it often is inaccurate, but no more, I think, than non-Western media).

To clarify

Firstly I will focus on English speaking media, so UK, Australia, US etc. I am aware that other western countries publish in English, but I rarely look at those.

1. Western media is not a homogenous entity, but the problem isn't so much different due to the system. Let me explain
a. the large ones are crap - self explanatory. Larger ones due to money reach a wider audience. Even news sources considered tabloids like Daily Fail get a decent audience.

b. small ones just regurgitate what larger ones say because they lack the funds to go to a particular place. I mean we see media outlets quote AP and Reuters for example. That means even if these smaller ones were honest, they don't have the money to go to other countries to get boots on the ground so they are at the mercy of the narrative of these bigger ones. To elaborate, a small Australian newsite can easily talk about Australian news, but if it wants to have a section talking about foreign news, it sources it from bigger outlets. This means any error are compounded.

c. There is a left and right divide at least with domestic politics, but this is less so for foreign affairs, aside from a few things like IvP. There are certain countries, we just bash. If we going to start a conflict or have downgrade in relations with big powers like China and Russia, I want accurate information so I can judge the wisdom of such actions, which we are not getting. So while mainstream is not particular homogenous in domestic politics, its much closer when it comes to international politics.

*******************************************
Secondly it depends on the topic as to whether I think non western media is more accurate. I would trust say Xinhua or the People's daily to talk about climate change more than say, Fox news. Heck I would trust Xinhua more on climate change than a lot of Australian news outlets which gives time to deniers. So yeah, I would trust non western media in that regard.

I would also trust Chinese news to be more accurate on very broad trends in their economy. You could argue they would say good things about their own economy, but their descriptions have turned out to be more correct than those outlets which allow prophets of doom to talk to get sales cough cough The Economists cough.

I would trust them to accurately give the point of view of the Chinese government, since they are the government's mouthpiece. This is not to say what the government says is accurate, only that a government mouthpiece will accurately report what the government believes. A lot of western media reporting can't even be bothered to quote accurately what the Chinese government actually believes even when officials say it in the ENGLISH EDITION of their news. Its that bad.

[Flagg]

mr stupid guy:

Fuck off. The New York Times, even with the correction (something President Stupid Racist never does) still got it 99.9% correct even when incorrectly mentioning agencies of no consequence. The President and his airhead minions regularly outright lie about anything and everything without ever admitting they are wrong.

So NYT corrects mistake, Donnie Dingleberry Administration still lying Cunts who are criminals that should be run out of D.C. (On the few hours he's there) on a rail.

[mr friendly guy]

mr stupid guy:

Fuck off. The New York Times, even with the correction (something President Stupid Racist never does) still got it 99.9% correct even when incorrectly mentioning agencies of no consequence. The President and his airhead minions regularly outright lie about anything and everything without ever admitting they are wrong.

So NYT corrects mistake, Donnie Dingleberry Administration still lying Cunts who are criminals that should be run out of D.C. (On the few hours he's there) on a rail.

Another person who doesn't read.

The point isn't that Trump is awesome or that the mistake BY ITSELF totally undermine their credibility, but the fact they can't even be bothered to check such details AND this inaccuracy (which shouldn't have happened in the first place if they just take a few minutes to exercise some due diligence) is part of a trend among mainstream media outlets. The fact that Trump is worse doesn't refute my point. Especially when I pointed out Trump is just more convincing in his lies (somehow).

[aerius]

Let's make this clear for y'all. You've got a loudmouth fuckface president who's happy to call out the media on the fuckups/lies and tell them that they're a bunch of idiots. If you're in the media biz, why in the hell would you make his life easier and give him credibility by printing unverified shit when you can spend an extra 5 seconds to verify and fact check your fucking stories? Why the fuck do you punch yourself in the nuts and score own-goals? How you gonna explain that?

[mr friendly guy]

Let's make this clear for y'all. You've got a loudmouth fuckface president who's happy to call out the media on the fuckups/lies and tell them that they're a bunch of idiots. If you're in the media biz, why in the hell would you make his life easier and give him credibility by printing unverified shit when you can spend an extra 5 seconds to verify and fact check your fucking stories? Why the fuck do you punch yourself in the nuts and score own-goals? How you gonna explain that?

Yes someone gets it. If you can't even be bothered to spend a few minutes checking something you're going to lose credibility.

Its just sad that it takes an idiot like Trump to make it obvious. Or perhaps that should be it takes a bigger liar like Trump to make it obvious.

[Flagg]

mr stupid guy:

Fuck off. The New York Times, even with the correction (something President Stupid Racist never does) still got it 99.9% correct even when incorrectly mentioning agencies of no consequence. The President and his airhead minions regularly outright lie about anything and everything without ever admitting they are wrong.

So NYT corrects mistake, Donnie Dingleberry Administration still lying Cunts who are criminals that should be run out of D.C. (On the few hours he's there) on a rail.

Another person who doesn't read.

The point isn't that Trump is awesome or that the mistake BY ITSELF totally undermine their credibility, but the fact they can't even be bothered to check such details AND this inaccuracy (which shouldn't have happened in the first place if they just take a few minutes to exercise some due diligence) is part of a trend among mainstream media outlets. The fact that Trump is worse doesn't refute my point. Especially when I pointed out Trump is just more convincing in his lies (somehow).

Yeah, except the NYT came forward and admitted they made a mistake.

When has anyone in the Trump syndicate done that? I'll save you the time: NEVER.

Should the NYT have done the 5 minute google search to find out the full story? Yes.
Does it change the fact that the agencies that matter in this instance are saying exactly what the NYT says? No.

Frankly, this is something that a nation not full of full blown idiots would view as a win for the NYT because the agencies that actually matter in this case are saying exactly what the paper said, but they acted like adults and corrected an error of no real consequence when the dipshit felcher who supposedly leads this failed Republic makes blatantly untrue and derogatory statements hourly and never corrects any of of shit he says that are flat out lies. Which is easily 90% of what he says. The remaining 10% consist of derogatory lies about mostly female individuals who call that fucking rapist on his shit and self promotion.

I have no end of criticism of the press be it the "alt-right" (Nazi) propaganda regularly given credibility, to the far left "Waaaa, we should have nominated Old Man Sanders" whiner brigade.

But the act of a reputable newspaper correcting their own error is beyond reproach and to say differently is to encourage more empty headed nonsense that is 80-90% of American "Journalism".

[mr friendly guy]

No one denies the NYT admitted their mistake, its right in the OP. No one denied Trump is a liar and no one claimed his administration has retracted stuff. THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The point is that even a "reputable" mainstream source can't even be bothered to spend a few minutes of fact checking (its right in the OP), and this is another indication that a lot of mainstream media is crap.

But I am glad you admit that the NYT should have done the 5 minute fact check. It seems you also agree with my views about parts of American journalism is rubbish. So I guess we agree on the most fundamental points.

However this lack of fact checking leads is still highly problematic. In this case the retraction did not change that much, a point I have never denied. However if they can't even bother to do such fact checking, what's to stop next time the error actually leads to completely altering the crux of the story?

I do not have a problem with people admitting mistakes. I do have a problem when the mistake should not have occurred in the first place with a few minutes of checking AND when one still has the gall to label themselves as "journalists." At least the CNN journalists fell on their sword and resigned when they fucked up, but lets face it, its only because they did an anti Trump story. Can you imagine any other highly paid profession like doctors or engineers being held to such a lax standard?

[Flagg]

Let's make this clear for y'all. You've got a loudmouth fuckface president who's happy to call out the media on the fuckups/lies and tell them that they're a bunch of idiots. If you're in the media biz, why in the hell would you make his life easier and give him credibility by printing unverified shit when you can spend an extra 5 seconds to verify and fact check your fucking stories? Why the fuck do you punch yourself in the nuts and score own-goals? How you gonna explain that?

Let me correct you here. Trump doesn't "call out the media on their fuckups" he just says anything negative reported about him or his incompetent administration "fake news" with no real specification or elaboration. So eventually any news agency with credibility (being that they report facts, Trumps arch-enemy (well, that and the clap)) will eventually make a mistake, and then, because they are responsible and make it their mission to get things right, will admit they made an error and print a correction.

In this case the error was stupid, but not really of consequence beyond the Trump supporting double digit IQ brigade waving it around like it exonerates their God-King when it doesn't come close.

I'd love for journalists to get things right the first time every time, but living in the real world I know that mistakes happen, and I'd rather have a Flawed news organization that corrects itself than brainless corporate or partisan "news" that reports speculative bullshit and only makes corrections as part of settling a lawsuit.

[Flagg]

No one denies the NYT admitted their mistake, its right in the OP. No one denied Trump is a liar and no one claimed his administration has retracted stuff. THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The point is that even a "reputable" mainstream source can't even be bothered to spend a few minutes of fact checking (its right in the OP), and this is another indication that a lot of mainstream media is crap.

But I am glad you admit that the NYT should have done the 5 minute fact check. It seems you also agree with my views about parts of American journalism is rubbish. So I guess we agree on the most fundamental points.

However this lack of fact checking leads is still highly problematic. In this case the retraction did not change that much, a point I have never denied. However if they can't even bother to do such fact checking, what's to stop next time the error actually leads to completely altering the crux of the story?

I do not have a problem with people admitting mistakes. I do have a problem when the mistake should not have occurred in the first place with a few minutes of checking AND when one still has the gall to label themselves as "journalists." At least the CNN journalists fell on their sword and resigned when they fucked up, but lets face it, its only because they did an anti Trump story. Can you imagine any other highly paid profession like doctors or engineers being held to such a lax standard?

The problem is that reputable journalism, especially daily newspapers are suffering from the fact that almost no one actually reads newspapers anymore so you have fewer journalists doing more work and shit like what happened at the NYT now wouldn't have happened 15-20 years ago. It's not an excuse, it's a tragic fact.

[aerius]

Let me correct you here. Trump doesn't "call out the media on their fuckups" he just says anything negative reported about him or his incompetent administration "fake news" with no real specification or elaboration. So eventually any news agency with credibility (being that they report facts, Trumps arch-enemy (well, that and the clap)) will eventually make a mistake, and then, because they are responsible and make it their mission to get things right, will admit they made an error and print a correction.

Trump gets away with it because the media has been shooting itself in the foot and killing its own credibility for years by pushing agendas & narratives, failing to check facts, and generally failing at its job which is to dig out the truth and report the fucking facts. Trump is an ass and the US public is dumb as rocks, but that doesn't change the fact that the US mainstream media is seen as a joke by damn near everyone outside the US. If Trump tried his BS against a reputable news agency he'd a)get laughed at by the public, and b)get his shit pushed in when the agency's journalists dig up every last bit of dirt on him and pushes it out to the public. Trump would either resign or be indicted so fast it wouldn't be funny.

I'd love for journalists to get things right the first time every time, but living in the real world I know that mistakes happen, and I'd rather have a Flawed news organization that corrects itself than brainless corporate or partisan "news" that reports speculative bullshit and only makes corrections as part of settling a lawsuit.

There's honest mistakes and there's we're too fucking lazy to give a shit mistakes. Far too many mistakes by the US media fall into the latter category.
For instance, this.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-3 ... an-hackers
There's no fucking excuse for that. Everyone involved in that debacle should've been shitcanned for gross incompetence.

[Lonestar]

For instance, this.

Your post saying MSM isn't credible cites Zero Hedge as a source? Why not run just to Info Wars while you're at it?

[Simon_Jester]

Once you start attacking the mainstream media for failing to be the media institutions of your wildest dreams, it's a short step to latching onto any random "alternative news" organization you see, and declaring it to be the institution of your wildest dreams.