More fake news WaPo issues retraction

[aegsm76]

link
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...nd-russia.html
snippets
The Washington Post has made a correction to an explosive cover story that undermines the entire premise of Monday’s front-page article headlined, "Obama sought to prod Facebook on Russia role."

The problem, according to a Facebook executive, is that when Obama reached out to the social media giant in 2016 to discuss political disinformation spreading on the site, he didn’t actually call out Russia – essentially making the Post’s headline misleading and inaccurate. Or, as President Trump would call it, “fake news.”

[Jermyn Davidson]

Is a retraction really, "fake news"?

Isn't it responsible and honest to issue a retraction when one is necessary?

[aegsm76]

JD - the fake news was referring to the original article and the problem with the news media, today.
I mean you write a national news story that goes over the entire world, then have to issue a retraction the next day!
Seriously!

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

JD - the fake news was referring to the original article and the problem with the news media, today.
I mean you write a national news story that goes over the entire world, then have to issue a retraction the next day!
Seriously!

The definition of, "fake news" seems to be evolving over time.

I doubt this situation is what 45 had in mind when he coined the term, "fake news".

Sometimes the media gets it wrong. Fox has had to do a retraction too. Is that, "fake news" too? Or does, "fake news" only apply to non-Fox News affiliates?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Retractions happen.
They are necessary, at times.
A retraction shows a commitment to truth in reporting.

A retraction of a story where unintentional mistakes were made is not an example of, "fake news".

"Fake news" would be to run with a story that is intentionally misleading or false.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Retractions happen.
They are necessary, at times.
A retraction shows a commitment to truth in reporting.

A retraction of a story where unintentional mistakes were made is not an example of, "fake news".

"Fake news" would be to run with a story that is intentionally misleading or false.

Well, if your story is so obviously wrong that it takes all of 24 hours to force a retraction, then it qualifies as fake news to me.
Because the writer obviously did a very poor job of reseach before writing and the editor did a poor job of checking the story.
I knew when the article was published it was bogus.
But, glad to see the Post admit it had problems.