Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

InkIcan t1_jd6h395 wrote

I got 2/3 of the way through this article and I still don't know why. Way to bury the lead.

167

KazeNilrem t1_jd6l50u wrote

This is the sort of thing that I feel destroys credibility. If you looked to for news and become clear that there is seemingly a conscious and wilful decision to omit information and misleading readers, that's wrong. At that point ought to be fired or removed because cannot be trusted.

Especially with how fucked up the supposed shared video is, zero sympathy. It is no wonder the article had a warning at the top.

17

diefreetimedie t1_jd6mkbv wrote

Corporate media is a scourge upon our society in today's day and age. Like SOAD said all them years ago...

"Advertising's got you on the run..."

14

ArugulaZ t1_jd6tu6q wrote

When RS first reported it, they were like "Our first amendment rights are under severe threat!" Uh, no, they weren't arresting the guy to silence him. He broke the law, in a most egregious way, and trying to spin it like this makes you look like conspirators.

84

fsr1967 t1_jd7b5vn wrote

Damn. Rolling Stone used to have good reporting. Not I'm not sure I can trust them.

sigh

Another well-liked/trusted icon bites the dust.

16

KamaKairade t1_jd7k5xz wrote

While you were downvoted by blue-line-zealots, you raise one of two points:

1: For the FBI to employ the tactic of using CP as a guise to obtain information and circumvent the 4th is not unheard of.

2: The only way to know the result for sure is to wait for the trial, which there often isn't one, because the matter is usually pleaded to avoid embarrassment.

−18

Sebekiz t1_jd7lyc4 wrote

This is why so many people are convinced that the "main stream media" is lying to them and turn to conspiracy theories and fringe "news" sources for their information. While Rolling Stone isn't exactly a publication I would look to for journalism, unless it involves the world of music and entertainment, the fact that they would post a news article that is so misleading just serves to convince many people that journalists really are lying to them.

This editor needs to be fired and banned from any job related to journalism.

22

goinmobile2030 t1_jd7oz4w wrote

In the interest of publication, details need to be released. So too, does Shachtman.

1

GetOffMyLawn1729 t1_jd7r0e2 wrote

actually it's spelled that way so as not to confuse it with "lead", as in the metal. In the days of lead type, extra space between lines would be added by inserting thin strips of lead. So you could say "Put 4 extra points of lead after the lede".

10

SsurebreC t1_jd7t2a9 wrote

> Meek shared a video showing the rape of an infant

Just a disgusting reminder that an infant is a child that's between 2 months and 1 year old.

So yeah, some people need to be buried under the jail for this one.

31

d01100100 t1_jd7xo49 wrote

I believe the reason was that this article is focused upon the relationship of the lead editor at RS with the subject of the original story by Tatiana Siegel in October 2022.

There was a later RS article written by Adam Rawnsley on Feb 2023 that goes further in depth on the charges. It's an article not for the squeamish.

If you're curious you can dig up the Reddit conversations off the original aforementioned article. They chalk it up to the FBI trying to stifle dissent, something both conspiracy and socialists agreed upon.

I also believe this NPR article is trying to show how the editorial curtailing of the original story lead to how this story could be spun to such an extent that when the later article was issued, there just wasn't a big shitstorm surrounding it.

18

StatusQuotidian t1_jd7yxjd wrote

>This is why so many people are convinced that the "main stream media" is lying to them

Nah, so many people are convinced the "mainstream media" is lying to them because of multiple lavishly funded multi-decade propaganda campaigns.

18

billpalto t1_jd84ehm wrote

Raped an infant??

I'd vote for the death penalty.

11

bulletbassman t1_jd8ktqb wrote

Yeah basically trying to convince congress that the government is infringing free speech because they are trying to remove misinformation from social media platforms. Absolutely ripe from a guy who’s consistently proved thru out his career not to verify his sources.

9

SolidDistribution542 t1_jd8rys0 wrote

"classified information" used in place of child porn is quite haunting, we’ve been using this term a lot lately.

1

HydroCorndog t1_jd8t24u wrote

If you have been charged with it, it's all over. The act is so reprehensible that a false accusation is as good as the truth. Public opinion will never shift back even when the accuser admits to lying. The man is doomed. Is it acceptable? I don't know. Maybe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Like the death penalty, I think there should be ironclad proof.

2

BoldestKobold t1_jd95gzs wrote

Yeah, because he was Musk's hand-picked "twitter files" guy who was tweeting about the Dem-led federal government or Dem politicians asking Twitter to take down misinformation, while actively avoiding talking about the pre-2020 Trump administration or Republican politicians making similar requests.

Guy was previously just a run of the mill sensationalist and sometimes acceptable journalist. Now he is totally fine using his name to lend credibility to clearly and obviously partisan actions.

4

Minimum_Intention848 t1_jd9iyua wrote

I *think* "the implication" of the article is that the material may have been planted because an intelligence service didn't like the content of his reporting.

Yes, it's conspiratorial and the author seems to be avoiding coming out and saying it by presenting the editorial timeline instead of verbalizing the theory.

−1

sticky-bit t1_jda58db wrote

> Rolling Stone used to have good reporting.

Are we talking about the "Gunshot Victims Left Waiting as Horse Dewormer Overdoses Overwhelm Oklahoma Hospitals, Doctor Says" story they never retracted, or further back with the retracted "A Rape on Campus" story where they finally did?

6

sticky-bit t1_jda5z2k wrote

> fact that they would post a news article that is so misleading just serves to convince many people that journalists really are lying to them.

How about that time that ABC news created a completely fictional Kurdish holocaust by doctoring a video of a machine gun shoot that happens twice a year near Knob Creek, Kentucky?

Did you know they had the journalistic integrity to retract the story after being caught red-handed, but only with a notice on Twitter? Then they scrubbed every URL about the story off their website and pointed the URLs to a generic 404 page.

5

Sebekiz t1_jdacevi wrote

I don't recall hearing about that story, but sadly I am not surprised. Most journalists and editors do their best to provide good stories, but it just takes is a one person willing to bend the truth either because they were paid off, or to fit a personal agenda or because they know someone (in this case the editor knew the accused) and all that integrity is wasted. When the truth comes out eventually it just reinforces all of the propaganda and conspiracy theories that lead so many people to believe that most/all of the profession is lying.

1

sticky-bit t1_jdanrbn wrote

Getting bamboozled from your source is one thing.

Having multiple people working as a team to scrub the mistake off the website in such a MINTRUTH way is something else entirely.

If ABC wanted to retract the story, they should ethically retract the story, not try to scrub it's existence off the internet. Also, they should have seriously consider burning their source so that same source doesn't bamboozle some other media outlet, (if in fact they are blaming their source and did not doctor the video in-house.)

Someone, maybe ABC news, maybe their source that they're still protecting altered the video to darken all the spectators in the foreground filming a barrel of gasoline being hit with tracer rounds downrange.

> Most journalists and editors do their best to provide good stories, but it just takes is a one person willing to bend the truth either because they were paid off, or to fit a personal agenda or because they know someone

2

yearz t1_jdbgsb6 wrote

In recent years, major "trusted" media outlets have been pushing pet narratives in the guise of factual reporting; a fraction of Americans possess the critical thinking ability to recognize that

2