The Google Memo

[s_stabeler]

and they claim freedom of the press to get away with it.

My point is that freedom of the press shouldn't be 100% unrestricted- or, more accurately, what's important is freedom of the press from political interference. (it's a little more complicated, but basically, if they're deliberately creating a scandal out of nothing, they should get inot trouble for it.

[mjr]

if they're deliberately creating a scandal out of nothing, they should get inot trouble for it.

But...how would you know?

Unless there's an incident where a video is shown, then the raw video comes out that shows a completely different story (I've seen this happen), and people actually find out about it.

Or in the case of this Google Memo. Most people didn't take the time to read it, so they're going by what the news reporters tell them. Is it accurate? I guess that's a matter of opinion. If you (in the general sense) posit something that could be considered scandalous, and no one checks your work...you could get away with it. And even to that end, the media companies can claim, "It's not deliberate. The public is forming their own opinions."

And what about retractions?

I mean, I think the media is blowing the memo way out of proportion (because I read it and formed an opinion that is based on my background, etc).

How many who have an opinion on this story do you think have actually read the 10 page one that has the sources in it? Could the guy have worded things more eloquently? Probably. But he's a techie. We're not necessarily known for our wording, which is why programmers don't generally write technical manuals. ;-)

[s_stabeler]

in the case of the video, then it depends. If they make a reasonable effort to check the video is genuine, then it's not creating a scandal out of nothing, but they should make the raw video just as prominent when it comes out. (half the problem is the press tends to shut up when proved wrong, rather then reasonably prominently correcting themselves.)

in the case of the google memo, the issue is the news reporters aren't just making people aware of the memo, but are actively encouraging people to see it as offensive- since that really isn't supported by the report, THAT is what makes it unacceptable. They aren't actually allowing the public to form their own opinions.

[mjr]

in the case of the video, then it depends. If they make a reasonable effort to check the video is genuine, then it's not creating a scandal out of nothing, but they should make the raw video just as prominent when it comes out. (half the problem is the press tends to shut up when proved wrong, rather then reasonably prominently correcting themselves.)

Well, if I recall correctly, the major news outlet released the original video, that their camera person captured. A person who had a cell phone released the raw footage of the same event, and of the same woman giving the same "speech". Then they tweeted out what "really happened". Then the major news outlet had to backpedal, and went, "Yeah, that's really what happened...we're sorry." (or something like that). But their original story was X, while what really happened was Y. And if the raw video hadn't come out, no one would have been the wiser. The ONLY reason that they had to retract in this case was because the raw cell video came out.

in the case of the google memo, the issue is the news reporters aren't just making people aware of the memo, but are actively encouraging people to see it as offensive- since that really isn't supported by the report, THAT is what makes it unacceptable. They aren't actually allowing the public to form their own opinions.

That's my belief as well. No quibble there.

[Canarr]

Interesting article on the Google Memo, and on The Economist's attempt at debunking it:

http://quillette.com/2017/08/31/goog...omist-nothing/