In reality, the opposite happened. I just called them. Hopefully they print a correction tomorrow.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/smarter-living/your-top-rival-can-be-your-biggest-ally.html
In reality, the opposite happened. I just called them. Hopefully they print a correction tomorrow.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/smarter-living/your-top-rival-can-be-your-biggest-ally.html
God, this is not what "fake news" means. This used to be a useful term that referred to "news" that was intentionally fabricated to produce an intended result. It isn't simply news that you disagree with, and it isn't even just a story that is actually false but was produced in good faith.
AN ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY!!!
HA!
killermike wrote:
... "news" that was intentionally fabricated to produce an intended result.
vs.
killermike wrote:
... story that is actually false but was produced in good faith.
This is what you call a distinction without a difference. Priceless!
pot meet kettle
Urban B wrote:
HA!
killermike wrote:
... "news" that was intentionally fabricated to produce an intended result.
vs.
killermike wrote:
... story that is actually false but was produced in good faith.
This is what you call a distinction without a difference. Priceless!
That is a massive difference, and I can't believe you don't see it. In one case, a journalist is working in good faith to produce a story that he or she believes is truthful. He or she just got something wrong.
In the other case, a person is intentionally trying to deceive readers by publishing a piece that is known to be false, all in an effort to influence him or her in a certain manner.
The first scenario is inevitable, and while it should be avoided as much as possible, doesn't represent a breach of trust between the reader and the journalist. The second one isn't even journalism.
You really don't see the difference?
rojo wrote:
In reality, the opposite happened. I just called them. Hopefully they print a correction tomorrow.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/smarter-living/your-top-rival-can-be-your-biggest-ally.html
The New York Times is for democrat pieces of trash.
That is not "fake news". A reporter can make an honest mistake or get the characters flipped around or was reading something where it was written incorrectly.
Very little of what is called "fake news" from mainstream publications are truly fake like the moon landings were ;)
How is this fake news? I didn't listen to the podcast, but the author seems to have a direct quote from Amy
[quote]
The 2017 New York City Marathon champion Shalane Flanagan doesn’t just train with her rivals. She actually helps them in competition. In the 2016 Olympic trials, Ms. Flanagan slowed down to help her rival and training partner, Amy Cragg.
“Shalane helped me every step of the way to give me the best possible chance of making that team,” Ms. Cragg explained on my podcast, WorkLife. “The goal was to make that Olympic team together.”
[quote]
rojo wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/smarter-living/your-top-rival-can-be-your-biggest-ally.html
I agree with the premise of the article without reading it.
killermike wrote:
Urban B wrote:
HA!
vs.
This is what you call a distinction without a difference. Priceless!
That is a massive difference, and I can't believe you don't see it. In one case, a journalist is working in good faith to produce a story that he or she believes is truthful. He or she just got something wrong.
In the other case, a person is intentionally trying to deceive readers by publishing a piece that is known to be false, all in an effort to influence him or her in a certain manner.
The first scenario is inevitable, and while it should be avoided as much as possible, doesn't represent a breach of trust between the reader and the journalist. The second one isn't even journalism.
You really don't see the difference?
Killermike, I think I get where you are coming from, but you are not explaining it very well.
In the story in question, Grant (the author) apparently switched the roles the women played around. That is not what happened and should be corrected. However, it really has little bearing on the idea he is putting forth.
The way you wrote your explanation makes me think of the Rolling Stone UVA mess where none of the facts were accurate but was produced to sell a viewpoint. The author even argued that it did not matter that it never happened because it could or it tells of what really happens.
A reporter can make an honest mistake of attributing a quote to the wrong person or putting in an erroneous stat without it being "fake news". Many, many reporters will issue a correction. Some do it on twitter where they realize they made an error and correct it.
killermike wrote:
God, this is not what "fake news" means. This used to be a useful term that referred to "news" that was intentionally fabricated to produce an intended result. It isn't simply news that you disagree with, and it isn't even just a story that is actually false but was produced in good faith.
Honestly, how often was the term "fake news" even used prior to Trump?
Unfortunately, it has turned into what you mention: to mean any story you disagree with.
Actually, Amy had trouble on the third lap, when Shalane was fine. Shalane slowed down at that point.
RW: Amy had a rough time on the third lap and you were the one helping her out, she said.
SF: I was constantly asking her how the pace felt because I didn’t want either of us to be overextending ourselves. There was no need to press when we were out front. I wanted to make sure we were in a rhythm and a groove. A few times I felt like I was pulling away from her a little and I kept asking if it was OK. She said that it did feel edgy and wanted to slow down a little bit.
I just said, “Amy, I’m not going to leave your side, this is like a training run. We’re just going to get this done together. I’m not going to leave your side until the finish line.”
Luv2Run wrote:
Killermike, I think I get where you are coming from, but you are not explaining it very well.
In the story in question, Grant (the author) apparently switched the roles the women played around. That is not what happened and should be corrected. However, it really has little bearing on the idea he is putting forth.
The way you wrote your explanation makes me think of the Rolling Stone UVA mess where none of the facts were accurate but was produced to sell a viewpoint. The author even argued that it did not matter that it never happened because it could or it tells of what really happens.
A reporter can make an honest mistake of attributing a quote to the wrong person or putting in an erroneous stat without it being "fake news". Many, many reporters will issue a correction. Some do it on twitter where they realize they made an error and correct it.
I think I'm explaining it perfectly. Is the journalist producing something that he or she genuinely believes is correct? If so, it isn't fake news.
I am not familiar with the Rolling Stone piece, so it's hard for me to comment on that.
Snopes is full of examples of fake news. They are stories that have no basis in reality (typically), and don't simply represent a journalist making a mistake. They are cases of someone producing a narrative to have some sort of effect on the reader. Here is just one example:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/press-release-2/rojo wrote:
In reality, the opposite happened. I just called them. Hopefully they print a correction tomorrow.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/smarter-living/your-top-rival-can-be-your-biggest-ally.html
Keep hoping...
Ok. So they both slowed down for each other in the same race. Well at a minimum he should have mentioned that later in the same race she got the favor returned to her?
That basically makes my point. The reason why one teammate might help another in a zero sum game like the Olympic Trials is because you never know when the roles could be reversed. So a skieer who goes down the slope first calls up to the top the slope conditions. They do that becuase they dont' want to be a dick and down the road the roles coudl be reversed.
Crikey! This news will impact between 2 and 2.5 people! Stop the madness!!
Your thread titles are garbage.
You absolutely suck at writing. Please resist every impulse to do it and find someone capable to do it instead.
This is the definition of not thinking before you post.
Awful impulsive drivel.