sorry apologizing doesn't make it go away...they eventually apologized about Gabby Giffords but it didnt bring her back to life--the people claiming fake news would have seen it and spread the word...why would they have such a graphic for a living person?...trying suggesting to a fake news person that apologizing makes it ok and see how far that gets you

@lerlo no. It does not make it go away... but, it is still not fake news.

They have the graphics and obituaries written for virtually every major celebrity and news figure already written. Why? Three reasons, at least. First, to be able to respond quickly when a death occurs (it’s a competitive business and responding quickly is a part of that). Second, preparing them in advance, and keeping them up to date, gives staff something to do on slow days. Third, it helps give junior staff training in the organization’s style.

@Rob1948 well not surprisingly we differ on our definition of fake...showing a graphic of a person's life span is known by the public as a death notice...showing one of someone who is alive is false and therefore fake.

@lerlo fake news is something deliberately disseminated, and not withdrawn because of errors or mistakes, to create a false impact. That does not fit the Ginsberg graphic.

By what I perceive of your definition, any news story with an error would be fake. A lot of news has errors. What distinguishes fake from not fake news is that fake news is both a deliberate attempt and uncorrected report while real news makes every effort to correct errors.

@Rob1948 the fake news people think that any story they disagree with is fake...totally goes against your definition...when I was a journalist we checked out sources...you put it out in public--you own it...otherwise all you have to do is apologize after every newscast to make it all disappear

Just because Fox News retracts a story does not mean they did not deliberately make a false/fake report. I think if they report something so blatantly false when it's for them easily verifiable, then they MUST have done so intentionally and with malice.
@lerlo

@bingst and you know this went live deliberately why? How?

@Rob1948 Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote.

@bingst You wrote “then they MUST have done so intentionally and with malice.” it’s an opinion. But, what facts are you basing it on. The quickly withdrew the graphic and apologized on air quickly after it happened apparently. They did not let it linger like they would were it done with malice.

So, how and why do you come to the conclusion that they lied, did it purposely with malice?

@Rob1948 Responsible journalism means applying due diligence. If you assume they're responsible, and thus did their due diligence, then it was with malice or ill-intent. Otherwise, they're irresponsible, which can also be construed as journalism with malicious intent. And yes, it's an opinion, thus why I said "I think."

@bingst yet, you aren’t even aware (choose not to recognize or are ignorant) of the circumstances that supposedly resulted in the error. The graphic was, according to their explanation, the result of an error by their graphics department. Due diligence in those circumstances does not apply. How and why, I do not know; but similar mistakes have occurred at all level of televised news media.

Opinions arise from reasoning based on a set of facts which you have chosen to not reveal. Without that, opinions are nothing more than noise.

@Rob1948 Honestly, I hadn't read the article and was not familiar with the incident of the graphic of Ginsburg. I was really just responding to your comment. My point was more that an apology and/or retraction has no bearing on whether or not something was done with ill-intent. The truth is that we'll probably never know for certain why such things happen. Even after reading the article, I'm still unsure of the entire context of that particular incident, for which I still have questions.

I have to admit to having a bias against Fox News, because so much of what they air is total bs. And I do not regard them as responsible journalists. I was considering the incident regarding Ginsburg in the context of Fox News itself. Had it been a more repuditable network, it might not have even spawned a story on a news site.

As for opinions, I do have to disagree. No facts are required to have an opinion.
"A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." - [en.oxforddictionaries.com]

@bingst I despise Fox but I will not let bias affect my view of everything they do or say.

Yeah, you can have an opinion not based on fact or knowledge but it would be useless. In reality, basing an opinion on nothing is not likely because we all have a body of knowledge that impacts what we do and how we think, even when we aren’t aware.

In this case, you opinion was based on your bias against Fox, based in past experience. It had no other factual basis. It could be said that it was based on bias or prejudice and ignorance.

Not a pretty picture.

@Rob1948 You seem to come across as an apologist for Fox News, despite saying you despise them. Perhaps you can ignore their past transgressions and judge each incident in a vacuum, the current action not considered in the context of past actions. I cannot. I would point out that your ignorance on this particular incident with Ginsburg is on par with mine: we don't know for certain why they did it. The difference is that you're giving them the benefit of the doubt, disregarding their past.

@bingst hardly. I’m simply trying to be fair given evidence to the contrary. In other words, I’m not letting my dislike for them color my opinion of this instance. You can’t say that.

As for my ignorance, at least I was knowledgeable about their explanation for what happened. You weren’t.

I suspect, if you had made a mistake, you would want to be judged fairly and not based solely on past actions regardless of the true facts.

Yes, past experience can color a reaction but doing so while ignoring the facts leaves you open to an accusation of bias. That means that your judgement, because of obvious bias, becomes questionable by others.

Personally, being thought of as fair is far more appealing than being accused of bias.

@Rob1948 LOL My dislike for them has everything to do with the kind of reporting they do, much of which is misinformation. Of course it's going to inform me about any indicent that's unusual even for them. I'm not a journalist. I'm not trying to be "fair and balanced." I have no reason to judge incidences as though... it is some other never-before-heard-of organization and not Fox News.

Listen to yourself, man. Past behavior doesn't matter? So do you apply the same kind of approach to the National Enquirer?

As for your being knowledgeable about the explanation they gave, I didn't comment on that, and I agree with the points you made regarding that. But that only explains why they had it in the first place, not why they aired it.

If I made a mistake, I would expect to be judged with my past in mind. That is reality.

You keep asserting that I'm ignoring the facts. Exactly what facts are you talking about? It surely can't be the fact of why they did it, because we... we do not know for certain why they did it. We only have their word that it was a mistake. Their word is not worth much, as far as I'm concerned. And why not? Due to their past and continuing behavior. I'm not going to ignore that for some unrealistic ideal of judging each and every thing they do on its own merits... in a proverbial vacuum. I would also assert that doing so is simply a mistake.

@bingst I never said past behavior does not matter. I said I would not judge them based solely on past behavior. And, yes you did saycomment in knowledge about the incident. You said, “… I would point out that your ignorance on this … is on par with mine.”

I don’t know specifically why the graphic appear live, but I can imagine why and how it could have been accidental. Should it have happened. No. Did they apologize, saying that their graphics people put it up accidentally? Yes.

Fine with me if you want past mistakes to color other’s judgement of you but, personally, I would want the facts to hold more import.

You said up front that up didn’t believe their explanation without knowing their explanation (or the facts). That is the very definition of being biased. If you can live with people thinking your judgement can’t be trusted because of your biases, fine. Puts you in the same league as Fox and Trump.

@Rob1948 Your ignorance as to why it was done is on par with mine. Your knowledge as to why they had the graphic in the first place seems reasonable, but... we actually don't know any of that to be a fact (as to why they had it). I never said I didn't know their explanation, which I took you on your word regarding that much of it. I said I hadn't read the article (I have by now). And finally, I didn't say I want to be judged on my past mistakes. I said I expect to be judged on my past (mistakes and all, in totality), because I'm a realist, that's how most people judge others.

You seem to have gone out of your way in twisting a lot of things, which leads me to conclude that you are a contrarian, at best. finished

@bingst contrarian? I can be. But, I also try to remain fair and unbiased. That is one of the ways I want to be judged.