Not so Breitbart strikes again
By tmcbpatriot
Andrew Breitbart is still dead! That much is true. Not much else coming out of his namesake's "news" site may be, though. For the second time in a month, Breitbart.com posted a false story that was later taken down after it turned out to be totally untrue.
Apparently, a story about Paul Krugman going bankrupt vent viral, getting picked up and reposted on the popular conservative website. Turns out, the story was satire, invented by a fake news website called The Daily Currant. Who knew? Well, Breitbart.com should have. However, before it was proven to be a non-story, it also wound up on Boston.com, which is actually a serious news source. Asked why Breitbart picked up the story in the first place without first vetting it for accuracy, they replied it was because Boston.com was a "trusted" news source. Great answer. It would later come out that Boston.com posted the story "by accident" while Brietbart did it on purpose.
It should come as no surprise that a hyper-partisan website like Breitbart.com would post satire as truth, especially when it is a story that bashes a well known liberal like Krugman. I am pretty sure, too, that the folks over at Breitbart wanted to believe this story, even if perhaps they doubted its veracity.
As a result, is it any wonder that our so-called news organizations are considered to be so untrustworthy? Additionally, can we even call them news organizations when stories such as this one trump actual news stories that are actually true and virtually ignored?
For example, just this week a report came out saying that about $8 billion was wasted or unaccounted for that was suposed to be used for reconstructing Iraq. Sure, we could file this story under "No Shit" and move on, but it also begs the question: Are we in danger when supposed news organizations report made-up stories as truth simply because they want it to be true or are we screwed because we, as readers, seem to care more about made-up stories even after we know they are not true while ignoring the ones that are?
The answer is a bit unclear, but if this latest media screw-up is any indication, I am pretty sure of what the answer most likely is.
(Cross-posted at Take My Country Back.)
Apparently, a story about Paul Krugman going bankrupt vent viral, getting picked up and reposted on the popular conservative website. Turns out, the story was satire, invented by a fake news website called The Daily Currant. Who knew? Well, Breitbart.com should have. However, before it was proven to be a non-story, it also wound up on Boston.com, which is actually a serious news source. Asked why Breitbart picked up the story in the first place without first vetting it for accuracy, they replied it was because Boston.com was a "trusted" news source. Great answer. It would later come out that Boston.com posted the story "by accident" while Brietbart did it on purpose.
It should come as no surprise that a hyper-partisan website like Breitbart.com would post satire as truth, especially when it is a story that bashes a well known liberal like Krugman. I am pretty sure, too, that the folks over at Breitbart wanted to believe this story, even if perhaps they doubted its veracity.
As a result, is it any wonder that our so-called news organizations are considered to be so untrustworthy? Additionally, can we even call them news organizations when stories such as this one trump actual news stories that are actually true and virtually ignored?
For example, just this week a report came out saying that about $8 billion was wasted or unaccounted for that was suposed to be used for reconstructing Iraq. Sure, we could file this story under "No Shit" and move on, but it also begs the question: Are we in danger when supposed news organizations report made-up stories as truth simply because they want it to be true or are we screwed because we, as readers, seem to care more about made-up stories even after we know they are not true while ignoring the ones that are?
The answer is a bit unclear, but if this latest media screw-up is any indication, I am pretty sure of what the answer most likely is.
(Cross-posted at Take My Country Back.)
Labels: Andrew Breitbart, Breitbart, conservative media, Iraq, news media, Paul Krugman
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
10:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home