Jamalisms

Sounds good!

Hey, uh, Never Go Full Soxcat...

Wait, Chris Warren is the top 15 RB? Lol, you kill me.

And a note from BuzzFeed: And later https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/20/media/buzzfeed-ben-smith-anthony-cormier/index.html

Justice Dept perspective, according to the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2019/01/18/b9c40d34-1b85-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html

Uh, projecting. I closed the topic. That's how we (me) have been and will be moderating this forum. It's not a democracy, it's how it is. Deal with that reality. If you want explanation of why and to understand how it's not the same as labeling it "Fake News," there have been about 10 posts discussing it, with statements ranging from very direct to loosely supportive. If you just want to insist it's an attack in media or equivalent to Fake News, full steam ahead. So far, you've chosen the latter. And, again, that's more damaging to free press than acknowledging differences in support for reporting and having standards (which reasonably carry between people).

That's not how it will be moderated. Locking a thread is based on evidence in a black and white manner. Judging journalism will not necessarily correlate, similar to how one may disagree personally with abortion but not support abolition of it into law. You'll have to get over it.

The thread was locked because the report lacks adequate support to balance out bring explicitly refuted by the authority and I am trying to moderate carefully to prevent proliferation of recollection incorrect information. It's rare, just like the statement from the special counsel was rare, but it happens. Mostly with shit, fake news. But, in this case, with an actual report that may have been enough to publish but walked a fine line and had been up in their face, for now, hurting journalistic integrity. Part of that is on BuzzFeed publishing without more support. Part of that is on the special counsel. Part of that is on the current climate. Part of that is just natural. But none of the unfortunate result causes the report to outweigh the special counsel statement.

No. Especially when it's partnered with numerous assertions like "for now" and "absent corroboration" and "we'll reassess" and "the refutation was intentionally generic to force us to set aside the whole thing despite that it may be based on a small disagreement" and even the explicit statement: "Not fake news." In fact, the previously locked thread were retired Fake News because they were, whereas this was locked with wording that indicated it could be reopened. I have started my general belief that the report is probably pretty accurate multiple times. You ignore that because you don't like something you agree with being closed down, regardless of the reason. Which is why your response has been silly and misguided.

Who called it fake news?

Lol, ok. Call it what you want. The freight train of ... X ... that manifested in this misplaced and passionate (is that word allowed?) defense of journalism i doesn't brake well. Full steam ahead!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-everybody-apos-bs-alarm-102751907.html Stronger than my opinion, but consistent with why the Special Counsel statement overrides the report, barring something more. Holding out that report as more than it is hurts journalism. Not the other way around. You have to be more careful in today's climate. Dot i's, cross t's and source even better. Journalism is hurt by inaccuracy, as it will be magnified.

Emotional freight trains don't brake so well. I'm not jumping in front of it with reason. You guys are in your feels. That it progressed to the creation of this thread makes me laugh.

Lol

This. We're left with nothing to stand on.