specialk said:
That sure was a COMPLETE(LY incorrect) rundown. CNN "went after" (read, investigated and did a story on) the reddit user who claimed to be the origin of the meme. They said as much in their reporting. Online anonymity is a nice thing to have, and I'm glad CNN exercised discretion in not publishing his name, but CNN probably does have the right to expose his personal identity no matter what. I am not a lawyer, but reddit users aren't like, protected FBI informants or anything. It's not life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and guarnateed anonymity online. Finally, there is no evidence that there was any deal, or any "word", or any other kind of quid pro quo exchange between CNN and the reddit user. Any time you guys imply that, you're affixing your own narrative to the situation. I 100% agree that CNN is guilty of extremely poor phrasing, but their clarification makes it clear that there was no deal. They say the phrasing was included to make it clear that there was no deal, and that they weren't publishing his name out of discretion (i.e., no deal). If you have proof that they're lying, I'm all ears. Anything else is just speculation about what is really an extremely unlikely event if you think it all the way through.
A few things, 1.) Rushing a story to print based on bad info is not "making fake news". It is regretably, something that happens in journalism. It happens a lot less at the most reputable outlets. At less reputable outlets, they fire people for it. At the least reputable outlets, they don't even acknowledge it (more on that in a second). I consider CNN to be in that middle tier. Spin? Sure. Entertainment over information? You bet. Flat out deceit? Nah. 2.) CNN, like most large organizations, is not a giant, monolithic body. As such, a segment producer like Carr, or a talking head like Van Jones, may have a different opinion about what constitutes a story than the reporters pounding the pavement. I work for a large company of over 3,000 employees. There is frequent disagreement about what opportunities are worth pursuing or what risks are worth considering. That's how things work. 3.) Here's the best part. Remember that lowest tier of reputable outlets I mentioned earlier? Project Veritas is one of those extremely low tier outlets. They've been busted multiple times, doctoring video and selectively editing in an attempt to willfully deceive. You may recognize Project Veritas as the outlet who released the Van Jones and Jimmy Carr videos. Maybe the stuff in the CNN sting videos is accurate. Maybe it's not. Either way, this illustrates my point beautifully. Media outlets that are traditionally thought of as left-leaning, (The Times, The Post, NPR, and yes, even CNN) will mess up occasionally. But they are held accountable. Alternative outlets such as Breitbart, Fox News, Project Veritas, the Gateway Pundit, or fuck, even the White House, mess up just as much or more. Quite often, they willfully deceive. No one holds them to any kind of standard though. And that's where we are. It is easy to dismiss all media. It's easy to say that it's all biased and all fake. But just the bit of nuance shows that you have a group of outlets that is held accountable, and plays by a certain set of rules. Then you have other outlets, who play by no rules, and are accountable to no one. It's plain as day. |
What the actual hell??
CNN has the right to publish someone's identity because of a meme? The hell?
