Saturday, August 05, 2017

Biased Media, Much?

Please read the linked article and tell me how it justifies a headline reading, “FBI tracked 'fake news' believed to be from Russia on Election Day,” since the closest they can come to such a conclusion is that they found, “social media user accounts behind stories, some based overseas, and the suspicion was that at least some were part of a Russian disinformation campaign.”

Not only is the “suspicion” two times removed from an actual conclusion but it is coming from absolutely no named sources but from unnamed “multiple sources,” from “two sources familiar with the investigation,” from “a person briefed on the investigation,” more “multiple sources,” from “one Obama White House official,” and from “others at the White House.”

One cannot read a news item today without encountering citations from anonymous sources, which used to be a taboo practice in the news business, but this article sets a new record for such citations, and establishes a new low for journalistic credibility.

Not only is it impossible to find justification for the headline, it’s pretty difficult to find justification for publication of the article at all, given that it says nothing other than that the FBI is managing to find new ways to justify calling it the “Federal Bureau of Ineptitude.”

1 comment:

bruce said...

So the mainstream media is going the way of the tabloid, making stuff up attributing to 'unnamed sources', insiders' etc? I guess they don't have enough to write about (quantity or quality) for todays gotta have everything instantly thing.

"Elvis alive on secret moon base!"

"US and Russians collaborate on ISS hoax! It's just a a big balloon!"

"Trump is a robot Decepticon controlled by sinister alien forces!"

oh, wait....

Post a Comment