Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I posted a while ago, USA TODAY aka Gannett, owns a HUGE list of 'local' papers across the country. I realized this when I moved to another mostly red area and the paper is overwhelmingly left leaning. I was reading those op eds and letters daily. I told my husband several times we should cancel and he wanted to read the sports but he is almost there, too.
Status:
"This too shall pass. But possibly, like a kidney stone."
(set 22 days ago)
36,124 posts, read 18,388,928 times
Reputation: 51184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
And these are the people we are supposed to TRUST when giving us news!
That's why it was important to them to accept her resignation, publicly out themselves, list the headlines contained fabricated info by headline but remove the body of the possibly incorrect articles.
Because it's very important to them that the public trust that they at least believe they're giving their readers the truth.
Errors happen, but it's important to them that at the time of publication, they believe the information to be accurate.
Status:
"This too shall pass. But possibly, like a kidney stone."
(set 22 days ago)
36,124 posts, read 18,388,928 times
Reputation: 51184
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
I don't even see USA Today mentioned in that link.
It turns out it was the topic, that she covered in one of her articles, about that nutcase who preached against vaccines and advised drinking urine.
There was a topic here on the forum about that guy (which is a true story, BTW) and she also covered that same story. Sounds like in her version of the story she inserted quotes that weren't from actual sources.
Status:
"This too shall pass. But possibly, like a kidney stone."
(set 22 days ago)
36,124 posts, read 18,388,928 times
Reputation: 51184
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired
Yeah but way after the fact. False stories need to be vetted out before being published
The news cycle just really can't accommodate that.
So what you need to have is reporters you can trust to have done their best to publish the truth, and then have the ability edit and correct after publication.
Yeah but way after the fact. False stories need to be vetted out before being published
That is not always possible for fast-breaking "urgent" news. But for a "soft" piece, I definitely agree!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
