Bootstrap wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 5:26 pm
RZehr seems to think I have been commenting on Fox coverage of this event. I haven't. At the time he mentioned my name, this was the only comment I had made in this thread, and it's a comment about consuming news, not a comment about Fox:
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 1:58 pm
Regardless, it's always good to wait for a week to find out what really happened.
Is that controversial?
I haven't followed the Fox News coverage of this or compared it to other sources. Did they make claims that went way beyond the evidence they had? Did they indicate some level of uncertainty? If these claims turned out to be false, did they clearly retract them later?
How did that compare to reporting in other sources?
Huh. Sure enough, I must have thought Jazman was you.
RZehr wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 4:20 pm
I can’t help but wonder. If the initial mainstream narrative was, say, a white supremacist attack, SZ, Ken and Boot, would have more patience with the media jumping to conclusions. Or anything else that dovetailed nicely with the liberal boogeymen.
If you see me doing that, please point it out at the time. I really can't think of examples where I do that. Can you? I think I consistently tell people that we don't know what's going on when there are new dramatic events. That's a rather major theme in what I write. We don't know at first.
Why promote sweeping negative stereotypes of people, prompted by nothing but your own speculation? What is your purpose with this post?
My purpose? No idea, didn't have a purpose. It was an observation, an "I wonder". Prompted by the same people (albeit, not actually the same as it turns out in your case) taking up the same side of an issue again.
Szdfan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:07 pm
I agree...if you see me doing that, please call me out at the time.
RZehr wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 4:20 pm
I can’t help but wonder. If the initial mainstream narrative was, say, a white supremacist attack, SZ, Ken and Boot, would have more patience with the media jumping to conclusions. Or anything else that dovetailed nicely with the liberal boogeymen.
I actually paid no attention to it at all until this thread exploded and I looked into it.
Probably because I don't pay attention to FOX news so never got the initial misinformation.
But sure. Feel free to call me out when I come here and breathlessly start a thread about the next white supremacist attack that turns out not to be.
Okay, I might do that. I never heard about this event either until this thread. It really doesn't bother me if the liberals all take the same position and then the conservatives line up across from them. It is to be completely expected.
RZehr wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 4:20 pm
I can’t help but wonder. If the initial mainstream narrative was, say, a white supremacist attack, SZ, Ken and Boot, would have more patience with the media jumping to conclusions. Or anything else that dovetailed nicely with the liberal boogeymen.
I actually paid no attention to it at all until this thread exploded and I looked into it.
Probably because I don't pay attention to FOX news so never got the initial misinformation.
But sure. Feel free to call me out when I come here and breathlessly start a thread about the next white supremacist attack that turns out not to be.
I guess I still don't know what for breathless misinformation FOX was publishing. I have an adblocker on my browser and am therefore persona-non-grata as far as Fox is concerned. I thought the actual quotes from Fox in this thread were relatively tame.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:55 pmI guess I still don't know what for breathless misinformation FOX was publishing. I have an adblocker on my browser and am therefore persona-non-grata as far as Fox is concerned. I thought the actual quotes from Fox in this thread were relatively tame.
Here you go. Front page story on FOX News that stayed up for several days before they took it down.
Their un-named "high-level source" was obviously not anyone with any connection to the actual investigation. Just someone who was willing to speculate anonymously to make a story. That is journalism malpractice to not verify your sources on story this big.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:55 pmI guess I still don't know what for breathless misinformation FOX was publishing. I have an adblocker on my browser and am therefore persona-non-grata as far as Fox is concerned. I thought the actual quotes from Fox in this thread were relatively tame.
Here you go. Front page story on FOX News that stayed up for several days before they took it down.
Their un-named "high-level source" was obviously not anyone with any connection to the actual investigation. Just someone who was willing to speculate anonymously to make a story. That is journalism malpractice to not verify your sources on story this big.
Oh, OK. That's interesting.
Were there any false claims or speculations made by FOX in the screenshot that you posted?
Were there any false claims or speculations made by FOX in the screenshot that you posted?
False claims were most certainly repeated and amplified by FOX news. And that is the most generous interpretation.
If you solicit and then knowingly and uncritically repeat the lies of others, does that make them true?
Whatever you want to call it, it isn't journalism.
"Sources say" are weasel words. THEY chose to run the story as a front-page headline story. And then gave whoever their "sources" are complete anonymity.
2 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Were there any false claims or speculations made by FOX in the screenshot that you posted?
False claims were most certainly repeated and amplified by FOX news. And that is the most generous interpretation.
If you solicit and then knowingly and uncritically repeat the lies of others, does that make them true?
Whatever you want to call it, it isn't journalism.
"Sources say" are weasel words. THEY chose to run the story as a front-page headline story. And then gave whoever their "sources" are complete anonymity.
I appreciate your concern for responsible journalism. The lack of it is part of the reason I find it annoying to read FOX, TheBlaze, CNN, Politico, WaPo, and company. It so happens that I think it would be wise for all of us to hold ourselves to high standards of accuracy whether we are writing news articles, posting on MennoNet, or having conversations IRL.
