You idiots. Russia is using vaccine denial as an active measure campaign!

[AnonymityX1000]

The Bush administration was responsible for the war in Iraq and used a lot of shady tactics and bullshyt information to get us into it. The NYT got used but that doesn't mean they should be censored or that they did something wrong. They ran a story based on information from a credible source in the white house. They kept their source anonymous in order to keep getting information. That's basic journalism.

What's the role of the media tho? To just parrot the government? I don't think so.
If the government comes to NYT and says 'Iraq is trying to get WMD by doing this, that and the third.' The newspaper is supposed to then investigate and find corroboration for the governments assertions. If they can't, then you got to print the story by first stating, "The same government asking for permission to go to war says Iraq is doing this that and the third to get WMD . ." You can't just say 'sources' that is misleading the public.
If a source is feeding you information you can't corroborate they then lose their ability to stay anonymous in that case. That's really basic journalism that has integrity.

 

[Black Panther]

You can't just say 'sources' that is misleading the public.
If a source is feeding you information you can't corroborate they then lose their ability to stay anonymous in that case. That's really basic journalism that has integrity.

If you can, try to sit down and chat with an actual investigative journalist.

If this is how you think journalism works, your mind is going to be blown.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

If you can, try to sit down and chat with an actual investigative journalist.

If this is how you think journalism works, your mind is going to be blown.

I'm talking about how it should work, maybe not how it is currently being practiced.

SPJ Ethics Committee Position Papers - Society of Professional Journalists

1. Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

The most important professional possession of journalists is credibility. If the news consumers don’t have faith that the stories they are reading or watching are accurate and fair, if they suspect information attributed to an anonymous source has been made up, then the journalists are as useful as a parka at the equator.

To protect their credibility and the credibility of their stories, reporters should use every possible avenue to confirm and attribute information before relying on unnamed sources. If the only way to publish a story that is of importance to the audience is to use anonymous sources, the reporter owes it to the readers to identify the source as clearly as possible without pointing a figure at the person who has been granted anonymity. If the investigating police officer confirms John Doe has been arrested, the officer is a “source in the police department” and not even a pronoun should point to the gender.

2. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

The information-gathering business is a give-and-take practice with a lot of public officials. Some are willing to provide information only when it benefits them. When someone asks to provide information off the record, be sure the reason is not to boost her own position by undermining someone else’s, to even the score with a rival, to attack an opponent or to push a personal agenda. Media outlet practices vary, but journalists should not overlook the danger of legal problems and credibility damage from publishing anonymously sourced information that is not confirmed by public records or credible sources. Before journalists allow themselves to be used by an anonymous source they should be sure to question whether the news value warrants whatever the source hopes to accomplish.

 

[Black Panther]

I'm talking about how it should work, maybe not how it is currently being practiced.

SPJ Ethics Committee Position Papers - Society of Professional Journalists

1. Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

The most important professional possession of journalists is credibility. If the news consumers don’t have faith that the stories they are reading or watching are accurate and fair, if they suspect information attributed to an anonymous source has been made up, then the journalists are as useful as a parka at the equator.

To protect their credibility and the credibility of their stories, reporters should use every possible avenue to confirm and attribute information before relying on unnamed sources. If the only way to publish a story that is of importance to the audience is to use anonymous sources, the reporter owes it to the readers to identify the source as clearly as possible without pointing a figure at the person who has been granted anonymity. If the investigating police officer confirms John Doe has been arrested, the officer is a “source in the police department” and not even a pronoun should point to the gender.

2. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

The information-gathering business is a give-and-take practice with a lot of public officials. Some are willing to provide information only when it benefits them. When someone asks to provide information off the record, be sure the reason is not to boost her own position by undermining someone else’s, to even the score with a rival, to attack an opponent or to push a personal agenda. Media outlet practices vary, but journalists should not overlook the danger of legal problems and credibility damage from publishing anonymously sourced information that is not confirmed by public records or credible sources. Before journalists allow themselves to be used by an anonymous source they should be sure to question whether the news value warrants whatever the source hopes to accomplish.

What evidence do you have that this isn't being practiced at outlets like NYT or WP?

It's very possible to stick to these principles perfectly...and still report wrong information.

Inaccurate journalism doesn't necessarily mean unethical journalism.

Were you aware of that?

 

[AnonymityX1000]

What evidence do you have that this isn't being practiced at outlets like NYT or WP?

It's very possible to stick to these principles perfectly...and still report wrong information.

Inaccurate journalism doesn't necessarily mean unethical journalism.

Were you aware of that?

How did Judith Miller corroborate that Iraq has or is trying to get WMD? I've never heard she did, have you?

I cited that specifically. I don't know what they do normally but if social media outlets are punishing people for misinformation please keep the same energy for all information outlets telling lies to the public.

 

[Black Panther]

How did Judith Miller corroborate that Iraq has or is trying to get WMD? I've never heard she did, have you?

...By asking officials who had seen the "intel".

I'm not really interested in debating whether the intel about Iraq's WMD's was either inaccurate or falsified (I think it might be a combo of both, which is why I put "intel" in quotes), but that's not the journalists' fault if a trustworthy source--such as the Secretary of State--fed her false, unverified, or inaccurate info.

So again, what evidence do you have that this isn't being practiced?

 

[AnonymityX1000]

...By asking officials who had seen the "intel".

I'm not really interested in debating whether the intel about Iraq's WMD's was either inaccurate or falsified (I think it might be a combo of both, which is why I put "intel" in quotes), but that's not the journalists' fault if a trustworthy source--such as the Secretary of State--fed her false, unverified, or inaccurate info.

So again, what evidence do you have that this isn't being practiced?

Wrong, I'm saying it is the NYT's fault for not corroborating the assertions of the government. The press is supposed to be a check on the government not kowtow to them and deem them trustworthy just cause.
You want more evidence huh? How about Jayson Blair being able to publish 8-9 stories in NYT that he completely made up or plagarized without his editor noticing?

 

[chico25]

How did Judith Miller corroborate that Iraq has or is trying to get WMD? I've never heard she did, have you?

I cited that specifically. I don't know what they do normally but if social media outlets are punishing people for misinformation please keep the same energy for all information outlets telling lies to the public.

What social media outlet is punishing people for misinformation?

 

[AnonymityX1000]

What social media outlet is punishing people for misinformation?

Alex Jones is being punished by Facebook, YouTube isn't he?

 

[chico25]

Alex Jones is being punished by Facebook, YouTube isn't he?

Where did you read that it was because of inaccurate information? From everything I've read it had to do with violating the terms of service. Possibly due to a threat of violence that was implied against a government official. I don't listen to his shows so I don't know which thing he said got him banned and I don't know how accurate that information is. I do know that inaccurate information is not getting people banned from social media. If it did there would be no social media.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Where did you read that it was because of inaccurate information? From everything I've read it had to do with violating the terms of service. Possibly due to a threat of violence that was implied against a government official. I don't listen to his shows so I don't know which thing he said got him banned and I don't know how accurate that information is. I do know that inaccurate information is not getting people banned from social media. If it did there would be no social media.

Oh I thought he for banned for saying Sandy Hook was a hoax. If that's not true my bad.

 

[88m3]

lots of good faith arguments in here

 

[Dr. Acula]

Nap sucks, let's just get that out of the way.

* * *

However, you're misrepresenting his position. He didn't say that the Russians created the vaccine truther movement; just that there is evidence Russian actors may be using the debate to exacerbate tensions in America.

Same with the IRA creating fake "pro-black" groups on Facebook in 2016 to encourage black voters to stay home on election day. That's still something that happened, even though racial tensions in America exist, as well as there being actual black people who pushed this same message on their own (shout out to Tariq Nasheed.)

Like I said in a previous post, follow the tweets posted by OP. Particular the last one. He is indirectly making the leap from simply stating that Russians are adding fuel to the fire and Rand Paul being some agent to help spread anti-vacination ideas in the US without proof. That is what takes his argument from the first to the second. Secondly, OP comes off as overstating the influence. He seems much more of the camp that everything that Russians might provide input or play around in is the same as being the Creator and sole orchestrator of.

OP goes into hysterics about this shyt and the consequence is it makes people sort of ignore a lot of what he says.

 

[Black Panther]

Wrong, I'm saying it is the NYT's fault for not corroborating the assertions of the government.

I'd argue that they probably did, and still got the reporting wrong. We only know now that there were no WMD's because of hindsight.

The press is supposed to be a check on the government not kowtow to them and deem them trustworthy just cause.

If we're still talking about WMD's in Iraq, this sounds like a subjective reading of what happened.

You want more evidence huh? How about Jayson Blair being able to publish 8-9 stories in NYT that he completely made up or plagarized without his editor noticing?

Is that the rule or the exception?

 

[AnonymityX1000]

I'd argue that they probably did, and still got the reporting wrong. We only know now that there were no WMD's because of hindsight.



If we're still talking about WMD's in Iraq, this sounds like a subjective reading of what happened.



Is that the rule or the exception?

Probably? Why probably if the information is wrong?
If they got it wrong how is that subjective?
If Blair was able to do it 9 different times I think that negates it from being an exception. lol