..
Pulitzer-winning WaPo ‘corrects’ Russiagate stories
13 Nov, 2021 04:05
Critics have called for the revocation of a Pulitzer Prize given to the Washington Post for its “relentless” Russiagate reporting, after the newspaper made heavy corrections to two stories based on the discredited Steele dossier.
In a statement on Friday, the Washington Post announced that it had removed “large portions” of two articles covering the discredited Steele dossier – a political opposition report commissioned by Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign which claimed to have evidence of a conspiracy between President Donald Trump and Russia.
Washington Post executive editor Sally Buzbee said the newspaper “could no longer stand by the accuracy” of entire sections of the articles from March 2017 and February 2019, which had mis-identified a primary source for the dossier’s most egregious claims – including that Trump had “defiled” a Moscow hotel room with prostitutes.
In an editor’s note for the 2017 article, the Washington Post said on Friday that its original account had “been contradicted by allegations contained in a federal indictment filed in November 2021 and undermined by further reporting.” A similar editor’s note was also added to the 2019 Russiagate article.
The Washington Post has previously added editor’s notes to several other dubious ‘Russiagate’ reports on alleged interference and hacking, and the newspaper was publicly condemned on Friday for having to add two more articles to the list of “corrected” stories.
“Another major editor's note attached to a Washington Post Russiagate story. This one is essentially a retraction. There's no way for major media outlets can keep evading this accountability. It's crashing down,” tweeted journalist Glenn Greenwald, who added that the “scope of the media's Russiagate fraud is only starting to be appreciated.”
Journalist Michael Tracey noted that Tom Hamburger and Rosalind Helderman, the two authors behind an article which “has now been effectively retracted,” received a Pulitzer Prize “for their Russiagate reporting from exactly the same time period.”
“Kinda makes you wonder what else they got egregiously wrong, doesn't it?” he questioned, as other social media users called on the Pulitzer Prize to revoke Hamburger and Helderman’s award and demanded that the journalists resign.
Some social media users questioned why the Washington Post would not completely retract its discredited coverage instead of making such heavy edits. Meanwhile, others argued the damage was already done and that deleting falsehoods several years after they published merely amounted to “hiding the evidence.”
“These news organizations harmed our democracy,” tweeted author Svetlana Lokhova. “We need a judicial public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the US press.”
No problem, we can appoint some Deep Staters to look into this!!! I wonder how much the editors at WaPo knew when they authorized these articles. It's easier to get forgiveness than permission. That the journalists (I use that term loosely) have not been fired would seem to implicate the editors.
Trans activists fuming as BBC executive tells staff that
journalism can hurt their feelings – media
14 Nov, 2021 08:25
A BBC meeting on LGBT rights reportedly left many activists in emotional distress, after leadership told them that in the profession of journalism, they will hear opinions they “don’t personally like.”
A Friday Zoom call between BBC executives and the broadcaster’s Pride network was described as “often hostile” by The Sunday Times. Fran Unsworth, the outgoing head of news at the BBC, reportedly told staff unhappy with how trans issues are covered by the outlet: “You’ll hear things you don’t personally like and see things you don’t like – that’s what the BBC is, and you have to get used to that.”
Unsworth, who is due to leave in January, was “totally calm but determined,” according to a journalist who was present at the call. “To me, it felt like she was having to explain journalism to idiots,” the source said.
The Guardian’s Owen Jones cited a source as saying that Unsworth was “terrible” during the meeting.
“People on the call were literally writing messages live that they were in tears and she didn’t say anything,” the source said, citing Unsworth as saying: “Journalism is not a scientific endeavour, it is an artistic endeavour.”
It would be better if it were both, for there might be a bigger commitment to honesty. Also, transgenderism is not scientific in the least.
Trans activist Christine Burns said that if this truly is Unsworth’s belief, “it’s over for BBC journalism” and that “no respectable journalist should aspire to work there.”
The BBC this month severed its relationship with trans advocacy organisation Stonewall, out of concern that the connection could compromise the impartiality of its coverage of trans issues. Critics of the move, such as Labour MP Nadia Whittome, say there should not be any impartiality on trans rights. “There is homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, or there is the active combatting of it and championing of equality.”
A rather limited perspective, IMHO
BBC News also published a controversial story on its website about lesbians allegedly coerced into having sex with biologically male trans women, which trans activists called transphobic. During the Friday call, BBC leadership defended the platforming of the article, which was penned by reporter Caroline Lowbridge, The Times said. Director-General Tim Davie and Director of Nations Rhodri Talfan Davies reportedly called it a good piece of journalism, with the caveat that it had to be corrected after publication to remove a quotation.
The activists were “extremely hostile” towards Davie, who previously chaired a lesbian, gay, and bisexual working group at the BBC, according to sources. “He was told by one member of staff that he was not in a position to make decisions on this issue, because he’s not trans,” a source said.
So, then, does it follow that trans people are in no position to make any decisions involving straight people, because they are not straight?
The push for unquestionable acceptance of trans rights at the BBC reportedly comes from the younger generation of employees, while older staff, particularly women, are concerned that it infringes on things like sex-restricted access to bathrooms.
“If you mention it, it’s like Invasion of the Body Snatchers: everyone goes quiet and their faces go blank,” one employee said, explaining to The Times that any debate on the issue has been discouraged at the BBC until recently.
It's just my perception, but it seems like the lunatics are throwing a tantrum because they can't run the asylum.
How do you make a horror story worse? - Give it to Alex Jones!
Alex Jones loses final lawsuit on Sandy Hook massacre
16 Nov, 2021 11:32
Conspiracy pundit Alex Jones was ruled liable by default in a civil lawsuit filed in Connecticut by families of Sandy Hook massacre victims. Jones failed to provide documents related to his business.
The Monday ruling builds up on a previous decision by a Texas court, which last month likewise found Jones liable by default. In both matters, Jones stonewalled court discovery, defying court orders to provide relevant materials.
Families of 10 victims, two in Texas and eight in Connecticut, seek damages from the popular conservative host, who claimed that the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut was staged. Jones claimed the tragedy was a “hoax” meant to give public support to tighten gun controls and branded people involved in it “crisis actors”.
After killing his mother, the 20-year-old shooter drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School, gunned down 20 students and six school employees and took his own life.
As an admitted conspiracy theorist, myself, I am appalled at the complete abandonment of truth, and the complete absence of any consideration for the families of Sandy Hook, in Jones' insane treatment of this horror story. I have no time for anyone who has no concern for the truth or for victims of madness.
All the defamation lawsuits were filed against Jones in 2018. The plaintiffs claimed damages for years of emotional distress and harassment by people who bought into Jones’ claims. Among the plaintiffs in the Connecticut lawsuit was an FBI agent who responded to the shooting and was branded a participant of the “hoax” by Jones.
The host later acknowledged that the massacre was real, but claims that it is being used by the US government to curb Americans’ freedoms with help from the victims’ families.
In both states, courts said Jones refused to provide documents about his business operation, which led them to issue rare liable-by-default rulings. Judges in Texas and Connecticut ordered him to deposit materials to assess whether he and his media outlet Infowars profited from his promotion of the conspiracy theory. Jones claimed he suffered a drop in audience share after making his false allegations about Sandy Hook.
Commenting on the Monday ruling, Jones said that he was denied a trial by a jury and was found “guilty until proven guilty; the only question is how guilty I am”. He was referring to the fact that in both cases he was ruled liable by a judge, while the amount of damages would be determined by a jury next year.
Jones’ lawyers said they will appeal the new ruling. “We remain confident that, in the end, the Sandy Hook families cannot prove either liability or damages. We think their lawyers know this; hence, the desperate effort to obtain a default,” his attorney Norman Pattis said.
No comments:
Post a Comment