Project Veritas vs WaPo

[Ph64]

Well, they are journalists. They might have a bias, but they won't take everything as some Project Veritas and the types, which is simply pushing an agenda.

That's the funny thing here, those politically motivated people who at start accuse the media being biased (which it often is) then typically start pushing the purest bullshit-propaganda themselves and use the type of tricks that Goebbels would use. And typically their audience falls for it.

The funny thing is you said they are journalists, and not simply people pushing an agenda.

Clearly, this story indicates that WaPo actually does what journalists do and fact-check a story before publishing it- which to many just leads to the idea that the Roy Moore stories (other than the fake one that PV tried to push) are actually fact-checked and WaPo was confident that they are true. I heard that it's actually part of the journalistic code of ethics to fact-checks stories and to not publish known false stories.

I clearly remember all the "fact checking" about Saddam's WMDs (can't let the next attack be in the shape of a mushroom cloud, can we?), and the chemical attack in Syria...

[Penner]

I just gotta love the projection being on displayed here by some members of the right.

[C-Mag]

I just gotta love the projection being on displayed here by some members of the right.

You can name names here Penner.

[Speaker to Animals]

What is the problem here? Veritas did their job in trying to keep the MSM honest. WaPo finally did their job and actually investigated a source before publishing. When the system actually works everybody gets upset?

[TheReal_ND]

Everyone is a little let down on both sides. Tragic!

[ssu]

Seek Truth and
Report It

Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

– Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.

– Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.

– Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.

– Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.

– Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.

– Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.

– Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.

– Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.

– Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.

– Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.

– Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

– Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.

– Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.

– Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.

– Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.

– Label advocacy and commentary.

– Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.

– Never plagiarize. Always attribute.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

The thing is that many people here likely think that nobody has journalistic standards. (And it's basically AN OBJECTIVE for an disinformation campaign, btw.)

What people seem not to understand that in nowhere above is it stated that the journalist shouldn't have opinions himself. The journalist CAN say that something is wrong or right, something is moral or immoral, ethical or unethical and have their own viewpoint and opinion. And from that comes usually what I call the "bias". You can follow everything above and make either an left-wing or right-wing biased story. And that bias simply comes from what event or thing the journalist covers. Yet it's easy to see that bias.

[TheReal_ND]

No, people are simply waking up to the fact that everyone and everything is biased you mongoloid.

[C-Mag]

Everyone is a little let down on both sides. Tragic!

Veritas did catch a WashPo exec saying the Russia stuff was just a pile of BS

[ssu]

No, people are simply waking up to the fact that everyone and everything is biased you mongoloid.

Waking up?

Never heard of editorials? Or that the owner and the editor-in-chief of a paper do matter?

Get serious, our Texan racist, media bias has been allways present. The thing is that you can observe it quite well, if one is at all informed about the issues. That doesn't mean that journalism wouldn't have a code (as mentioned above). Liberal newspapers will be liberal. It's so easy. They won't judge the same way a Democrat President as they do a Republican President. But likely they won't intentionally lie. Why do that? Bias works.

Veritas did catch a WashPo exec saying the Russia stuff was just a pile of BS

Lol. Well that makes the case of Veritas' credibility.

Sorry, but when you notice yourself during the election that Trump tweets a Russian fake news story that is proved to be fake, for me it's then obvious that Russia had an information campaign on. So when someone says it's a pile of BS, fuck them.

[TheReal_ND]

proven to be fake

HAHAHAHA BASED SNOPES

TRUMP BTFO