WAPO called out for huge lie...again

[Luvnit2]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-issues-correction-after-wrongly-reporting-us-brokered-deal-pause-israel-hamas-conflict
WAPO sure lies a lot and is forced to make corrections. I am not sure which liberal rag is worse, NYT or Washington Post.

Washington Post issues correction after wrongly reporting a U.S.-brokered deal to pause Israel-Hamas conflict
White House National Security Council called out Post's inaccurate report

The Washington Post inaccurately reported that the United States brokered a deal to pause conflict between Israel and Hamas for five days to free women and children hostages in Gaza, but issued a correction after being called out by the White House National Security Council.

On Saturday, the Washington Post published a story that claimed a tentative deal was reached that featured the headline, "Israel and Hamas reach tentative U.S.-brokered deal to pause conflict, free dozens of hostages." The paper cited "people familiar with the terms of the agreement" and reported the pause in fighting would be monitored by aerial surveillance.

The Post then shared the story on social media, writing, "Israel and Hamas reach tentative U.S.-brokered deal to pause conflict for five days and free women and children hostages."

[*Nately120*]

The for-profit model strikes again. Damn you, capitalism.

[*pally*]

(11-20-2023, 01:47 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-issues-correction-after-wrongly-reporting-us-brokered-deal-pause-israel-hamas-conflict
WAPO sure lies a lot and is forced to make corrections. I am not sure which liberal rag is worse, NYT or Washington Post.

Washington Post issues correction after wrongly reporting a U.S.-brokered deal to pause Israel-Hamas conflict
White House National Security Council called out Post's inaccurate report

The Washington Post inaccurately reported that the United States brokered a deal to pause conflict between Israel and Hamas for five days to free women and children hostages in Gaza, but issued a correction after being called out by the White House National Security Council.

On Saturday, the Washington Post published a story that claimed a tentative deal was reached that featured the headline, "Israel and Hamas reach tentative U.S.-brokered deal to pause conflict, free dozens of hostages." The paper cited "people familiar with the terms of the agreement" and reported the pause in fighting would be monitored by aerial surveillance.

The Post then shared the story on social media, writing, "Israel and Hamas reach tentative U.S.-brokered deal to pause conflict for five days and free women and children hostages."

so they made a mistake and corrected it?  how novel.  If only your favorite news channel would do the same.  Has Fox ever corrected one of their stories?

[Belsnickel]

(11-20-2023, 02:06 PM)pally Wrote: so they made a mistake and corrected it?  how novel.  If only your favorite news channel would do the same.  Has Fox ever corrected one of their stories?

[basballguy]

(11-20-2023, 02:06 PM)pally Wrote: so they made a mistake and corrected it?  how novel.  If only your favorite news channel would do the same.  Has Fox ever corrected one of their stories?

I think this goes beyond "making a mistake and correcting it" and is actually just lying.  

[CJD]

(11-20-2023, 04:38 PM)basballguy Wrote: I think this goes beyond "making a mistake and correcting it" and is actually just lying.  

It seems to me like someone at the Washington Post probably has an insider source that told them a deal had been brokered or was close to being brokered, they jumped the gun to report it first (because reporting first is the only thing that matters in this media environment), and then the deal had not been finalized by the time the article was published. Or, alternatively, the inside source was just fraudulent.

There's a chance the WaPo reporter just straight up lied, but the fact that the White House clarified that they continue to work towards a deal and other officials have said the likelihood of said agreement have gone up in recent weeks tells me that this reporter was just being antzy in pulling the trigger on some morsel of information they had been fed.

[Belsnickel]

(11-20-2023, 04:38 PM)basballguy Wrote: I think this goes beyond "making a mistake and correcting it" and is actually just lying.  

And what evidence do you have of that? Do you know they lacked any sources that they had reason to believe were giving them accurate information telling them this?

[basballguy]

(11-20-2023, 04:53 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It seems to me like someone at the Washington Post probably has an insider source that told them a deal had been brokered or was close to being brokered, they jumped the gun to report it first (because reporting first is the only thing that matters in this media environment), and then the deal had not been finalized by the time the article was published. Or, alternatively, the inside source was just fraudulent.

There's a chance the WaPo reporter just straight up lied, but the fact that the White House clarified that they continue to work towards a deal and other officials have said the likelihood of said agreement have gone up in recent weeks tells me that this reporter was just being antzy in pulling the trigger on some morsel of information they had been fed.

It's quite possible....but this, to me, is one of those things we see with sports writing all the time.  Everyone knows it's going to happen, but someone wants to be the first to say it's happening, without actual confirmation.   (NBA reporters are notorious for it).  I think what happened here is, like you said, this person wanted to be the first to report it.  No deal had been done but the writing is on the wall...so they just lied to get the story out.  Now one could argue the semantics around what lying means (with intent)...but to me it's all the same.  It was nefarious enough for the WH to call it out.  

[CJD]

(11-20-2023, 07:41 PM)basballguy Wrote: It's quite possible....but this, to me, is one of those things we see with sports writing all the time.  Everyone knows it's going to happen, but someone wants to be the first to say it's happening, without actual confirmation.   (NBA reporters are notorious for it).  I think what happened here is, like you said, this person wanted to be the first to report it.  No deal had been done but the writing is on the wall...so they just lied to get the story out.  Now one could argue the semantics around what lying means (with intent)...but to me it's all the same.  It was nefarious enough for the WH to call it out.  

Yep, you see it during NFL free agency too. 95% of the reports are accurate, but every once in a while, someone talks to the wrong person about whether a player plans to sign with a team and they get the impression it's a done deal, report it and then have to correct it when someone says it isn't done yet.

I remember it happened with one of the Bengals podcasters and Tee Higgins this past off season. He claimed he spoke to someone close to Tee who said he had agreed to a contract extension, he wanted to beat the official report of the contract, and caused a whole lot of commotion on Bengals twitter as people fought about whether he was lying, if there was one more step before it was officially announced or if he was merely misinformed.

Regardless of the reason, that Bengals podcaster has been put in the "do no trust anymore" bucket because of this bad report.

That will happen here with this WaPo reporter as well, I imagine.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Calling this a "huge lie" is not accurate or fair. As stated this does highlight one of the biggest flaws of modern journalism, the need to be first, but I don't see this as a deliberate lie at all.

[Luvnit2]

(11-20-2023, 09:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Calling this a "huge lie" is not accurate or fair.  As stated this does highlight one of the biggest flaws of modern journalism, the need to be first, but I don't see this as a deliberate lie at all.

The problem in the be first culture, is the retractions rarely get the national attention of the wrongly reported story. The biggest case is the bombing of the hospital in Gaza used as propaganda by Hamas. We now know the truth it was not Israel bombing a hospital, it was terrorists inside Gaza.

Yet, we still have congress women and protestors spread the false story and then violently protest. This false story and those propping it up  caused riots in Muslim countries and attacks against the US military in the middle east.

It was a lie and bad reporting (using Hamas as a source AP, NYT, BBC and CNN). How many troops were injured due to this false story? We will never know.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-21-2023, 12:00 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The problem in the be first culture, is the retractions rarely get the national attention of the wrongly reported story. The biggest case is the bombing of the hospital in Gaza used as propaganda by Hamas. We now know the truth it was not Israel bombing a hospital, it was terrorists inside Gaza.

It's definitely not the biggest case of this, although it is certainly an example.  Also, while retractions rarely get the attention of the initial story this isn't a case in which some damage was done and then the retraction barely mitigates that damage.  This was a story that was put out as a possibility and turned out not to be true.  It's not on par with the admittedly poor reporting on the hospital "bombing".

Quote:Yet, we still have congress women and protestors spread the false story and then violently protest. This false story and those propping it up  caused riots in Muslim countries and attacks against the US military in the middle east.

It was a lie and bad reporting (using Hamas as a source AP, NYT, BBC and CNN). How many troops were injured due to this false story? We will never know.

Yes, and Tlaib was rightfully, in my opinion, censured for doing so.  But again, your conflating two cases of reporting that turned out to be false as being of equal severity.  This current example is no where near as serious.  And again, it was reported as a "possible ceasefire".  This isn't the rock solid yet another example you're making it out to be.

[Arturo Bandini]

This thread is hilarious.

Onion level like : Dude who makes 30 propaganda posts by day is outraged someone else is lying.

[*pally*]

The Israeli government is voting on a cease-fire/hostage release deal today. So it seems like this story was more premature than an outright lie

[Dill]

(11-20-2023, 01:47 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-issues-correction-after-wrongly-reporting-us-brokered-deal-pause-israel-hamas-conflict
WAPO sure lies a lot and is forced to make corrections. I am not sure which liberal rag is worse, NYT or Washington Post.

Washington Post issues correction after wrongly reporting a U.S.-brokered deal to pause Israel-Hamas conflict
White House National Security Council called out Post's inaccurate report

The Washington Post inaccurately reported that the United States brokered a deal to pause conflict between Israel and Hamas for five days to free women and children hostages in Gaza, but issued a correction after being called out by the White House National Security Council.

On Saturday, the Washington Post published a story that claimed a tentative deal was reached that featured the headline, "Israel and Hamas reach tentative U.S.-brokered deal to pause conflict, free dozens of hostages." The paper cited "people familiar with the terms of the agreement" and reported the pause in fighting would be monitored by aerial surveillance.

The Post then shared the story on social media, writing, "Israel and Hamas reach tentative U.S.-brokered deal to pause conflict for five days and free women and children hostages."

Can you recommend a news source which is more trustworthy than the NYT or WaPo?

Which one are you using?

[Luvnit2]

(11-21-2023, 10:30 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: This thread is hilarious.

Onion level like : Dude who makes 30 propaganda posts by day is outraged someone else is lying.

I have a name and it is not dude.

Please share the 30 propaganda posts I have made each day. I will let you pick any 3 days in the past 2 weeks to prove your post.

If not, please just go away and try and cancel someone else, I am not going anywhere.

So show us, I m sure the forum would love to see your facts of me making 30 propaganda posts a day.

[basballguy]

(11-21-2023, 10:54 AM)pally Wrote: The Israeli government is voting on a cease-fire/hostage release deal today. So it seems like this story was more premature than an outright lie

If your boss asks you on Monday if you finished that PowerPoint and you say yes…knowing full well it’s not done but you’ll have it done in a few more days, is that a lie or a premature commitment?

At best it’s being unnecessarily deceptive.

Considering they got at least one fact wrong and missed by several days, and got called out by the WH….it’s looking like lying to me…

[Belsnickel]

[*pally*]

(11-22-2023, 12:46 AM)basballguy Wrote: If your boss asks you on Monday if you finished that PowerPoint and you say yes…knowing full well it’s not done but you’ll have it done in a few more days, is that a lie or a premature commitment?

At best it’s being unnecessarily deceptive.  

Considering they got at least one fact wrong and missed by several days, and got called out by the WH….it’s looking like lying to me…

If you are told something by somebody who is supposed to know what is going on and you believe it and pass it on as intended were you lying or were you deceived?  Is it a lie if you believe the story to be true when reported?

Since the deal they reported on is pretty damn close to the one actually met, it sounds like someone in the know jumped the gun and started spreading the news to his sources

[Arturo Bandini]

(11-22-2023, 12:46 AM)basballguy Wrote: If your boss asks you on Monday if you finished that PowerPoint and you say yes…knowing full well it’s not done but you’ll have it done in a few more days, is that a lie or a premature commitment?

At best it’s being unnecessarily deceptive.  

Considering they got at least one fact wrong and missed by several days, and got called out by the WH….it’s looking like lying to me…

You weren't that much this sensitive with the 2 weeks crew.