LINK Usa today criticized for publishing inaccurate trump op-ed
"'How can @usatoday allow Trump tp [sic] publish an article with documented falsehoods?' tweeted Glenn Kessler, who writes the 'Fact Checker' blog for The Washington Post.
"Others pointed out that the op-ed contained links that included information directly refuting its claims."
my own take: on the one hand, you can cite freedom of the press, and indeed, usa today has the right to print any old crap it wants. on the other hand, the critics also have freedom of the press and speech, as appropriate, and can certainly correctly criticize usa today for choosing to print crap. may usa today print this? sure. should it? no, it shouldn't. it probably at least claims that it is careful and selective about what it publishes, as any reputable entity should be. this came from the president so they doubtless had pressure to publish it intact, with all its errors. too bad. an ethical entity doesn't cave to pressure. keep in mind the pressure might not have come from the white house; it might have come from the profit motive, my statement about ethical entities stands.
g
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Ummm, an op-ed is Opinion....?
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Oct 11, 2018
0
yes and opinion pieces are chosen carefully by the editorial boards of publishing entities. they are not required to publish the opinion of everyone who expresses one. they are not required to fact-check when they GET an opinion that cites untruths, but it sure would be a good thing to do, and it's valid to criticize them it they don't bother.
g
@genessa I reject All censorship! Publish an opposing piece!
@AnneWimsey choosing not to publish one of a gazillion submitted op-ed pieces isn't censorship! it's editorial prerogative, and it should have been used. the fact that it's by the president is an even stronger reason to be sure it's suitable before printing it. if i sent in an op-ed piece they probably wouldn't publish it, and i'm a much better writer than the president, not to mention a better person, a more knowledgeable person (it doesn't take much) and a kinder person. an opinion piece that cites incorrect information needs to be fact-checked just like an article. that's not censorship.
g
- Who decides who censors?
- How can you stand up to an enemy if you have no idea what they are thinking?
- Who wil be reading your, or my, article to censor it? Good for the goose, good for the gander!
A slippery, slippery slope!
@AnneWimsey 1. the editors, and as i say, it's not censorship. it's editors doing their jobs (or in this case, not.) 2. you can know what the enemy is thinking without giving them a platform with no correction of the lies and errors, implying approval. 3. the same editors, except i wouldn't contribute to the wsj or usatoday.or the national enquirer. and it's not censorship! editors get to choose what's in their publication! i've BEEN a magazine editor. when i said yes this, no not that, it wasn't censorship. our magazine wasn't a thousand pages long. we chose what went in and what didn't, and if the article was crap it didn't get in. i've also been rejected by editors. they had the right to do it. i wasn't happy but i didn't delude myself that i'd been censored. i'd been rejected. MOST submissions get rejected. the president's submission didn't get rejected because he's president, even though his submission was full of lies. it could've been accepted with corrections. they didn't do that. they accepted it and presented it as if it was true. that's irresponsible.
g
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.