• Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Idk the retraction is pretty honest. Not to mention, that source may have said things originally, and not wanted to continue to say those same things afterwards for any number of reasons(they were lies or even, they don’t feel comfortable being publicized)

    • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Why did such an internationally respected english news source go with such flimsy evidence on a topic where the consequences of leaning into rightwing narratives are so high?

      • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        14 hours ago

        because none of these major publications aside from propublica and others like it value real journalism because we live in a world that is so full of the lie that getting the story first is more important than getting the story right. the guardian is better than many, but many people who work there came from news orgs that valued speed over accuracy. blame advertisers normalizing shit like getting every news org to investigate who al gore was going to pick for is running mate. a story that required no scoop. we were all gonna find out no matter what