Bayshore Broadcasting Corporation

 Road Closures     ... weather related cancellations ... Cancellations     

News Centre

News Centre


Hyperbole in reports of Russian hacking our democracies 
Posted (2017-07-04)

OK … so how do we think & what do we do when “credible sources”, like the Washington Post, get it wrong?

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/27/cnn-journalists-resign-latest-example-of-media-recklessness-on-the-russia-threat/

David McLaren
Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @JDavidMcLaren

Web: https://jdavidmclaren.wordpress.com/


And you think that this is credible? You believe Sputnik News and the Breitbart are more credible?The real test is what the Special Prosecutor determines after thorough examination. And no one knows where that will lead at this point.

Trent


I read this story, noted the references Trent has mentioned, & then went digging in the Washington Post and elsewhere.  It turns out that the Post has had quite an incredible run of accuracy in its exposure pieces lately; it's only other major gaffe seems to have been last November.
 
And i noted some other sources who report that the Washington Post reporting is far above most others in its accuracy.
Finally, the Post seems to have acknowledged its error on these hacking pieces and given its corrections the same, or almost the same prominence as the original stories, along with noting that it's having internal "discussions" to prevent a repeat.  Even Woodward & Bernstein goofed badly in some reporting on their way to the biggest takedown yet (so far).....
Of course, nothing can really offset the comment from the Burlington, Vermont utility spokesman who said simply, if they'd asked us, they'd have gotten the first story right.
 
There are so many sources today whose reporting i simply cannot trust holu-bolus.  This is one of them, i think.
 
Dave Carr

Trent

I confess to sending this around partly to see whether you’d shoot the messenger again. You did.

Obviously, I don’t think Sputnik and Breitbart are credible, but I think Glenn Greenwald is. From his reporting on Snowden, he has developed sources that I’m pretty sure the Washington Post doesn’t have. So I think it wise at least to admit he might be on to something important. If the US is indeed manufacturing or even exaggerating Russian political hacking, then Eisenhower’s MI Complex is moving us dangerously and unnecessarily closer to open conflict with Russia.

I also think it’s wise to realize that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the philosophy (and news) of the Washington Post, or the Globe and Mail, or the Toronto Star, or the Intercept, or the Guardian …

Skepticism with sources is always good, as long as it also includes sources like the Washington Post whose point of view is surely bent by being so tightly wrapped in the Beltway. Dave moved my skepti-meter a bit closer to ‘trust’ with the Washington Post, but I’d love to know the yard-stick he used to measure the Post’s accuracy.

Regards, as always,

David


The messenger creates the message. 

Trent Gow


What one always has to be careful of, is differentiating the reportage from opinion.  And yes, in the Post, the NY Times & similar organs, they are surely very, very different animals!

Dave Carr


Bayshore Broadcasting Corporation
© 2017 Bayshore Broadcasting Corporation

Web Site by Websmart Inc