Another person shot dead this time at a rally and counter protest clash in Denver

[Silvanus]

I do wonder whether in 100 years, society will be looking back at a much diminished transatlantic culture and deciding China had the right idea.

If those observers are judging us poorly based on a slide towards cruelty and totalitarianism, I very much doubt they'll be looking at the Chinese government as a superior model.

His response is that "I shared what was in the Denver Post report, which was written by a journalist on the ground"

Is that unethical?

If he signal-boosts the original misinformation but then fails to signal-boost the correction, then yes, that's unethical.

 

[Agema]

If those observers are judging us poorly based on a slide towards cruelty and totalitarianism, I very much doubt they'll be looking at the Chinese government as a superior model.

I think it's the fact that the winners will be totalitarians (or at least, exercise very extensive information and media control), and they'll be judging us as idiots who let the population go rampant on insane media output.

 

[Samtemdo8]

New update the shooter may have been a security guard but he wasn't licenced

That guy looks like The Quartering!

 

[Houseman]

If he signal-boosts the original misinformation but then fails to signal-boost the correction, then yes, that's unethical.

He tweeted about it. Does that not count?

 

[Buyetyen]

Unsurprised that it's Pim Tool trying to make hay out of this one. The sad thing is that the people who follow him know he's a lying piece of shit and that's why they like him.

 

[Exley97]

How's that?
You're aware that the Denver Post report was edited to include more details as to the identity of the shooter, right?
And you're aware that Ngo made his tweet based off the first version of the article, right?

I am aware. And if Ngo and Cheong left it at "left wing protester" and attributed that information to the Denver Post report (which they didn't until later) then they might have a point.

But they don't because both of them had others Tweets about "Denver Antifa" being responsible. And there's nothing in the Denver Post article about the shooter being Antifa. Nothing. Cheong and Ngo went there by themselves. But instead of admitting they were wrong and that the Post Millenial headline was changed, now they're doubling down! (Cheong responded to the Denver PD's Tweet saying it wasn't Antifa by saying it was a "moot point")

And listen... if you're a reporter and your article is titled "Alleged Antifa militant shoots and kills conservative at 'Patriot Rally' in Denver" and you *cite the Denver Post article as your source* -- which again makes no reference to the shooter being Antifa -- then I have to question not only your sincerity as an ethical journalist but also your intelligence and reading comprehension. So yes, Cheong and the others are not only unprofessional trash, but they may also be fucking stupid (or maybe they just assume their fans are stupid, either one).

 

[Houseman]

But they don't because both of them had others Tweets about "Denver Antifa" being responsible. And there's nothing in the Denver Post article about the shooter being Antifa.

The original article or the updated version?
If it's the original article, do you have that archived somewhere? I've never seen it.
If it's the updated version, how do you know what it said originally?

 

[Silvanus]

He tweeted about it. Does that not count?

Well, sort of-- he deleted the original tweet and added his clarification to that old tweet-thread, rather than tweeting anew. Plus, his original tweet straightforwardly stated as fact that it was a "left-wing activist", whereas the clarification he gave was more mealy-mouthed: "police are saying this now", rather than "this/I was incorrect".

But, yes, it counts for something. But the point of Will Sommer's tweet still stands. The fact remains that Andy Ngo's original (wrong) tweet was retweeted 13,000 times, and his clarification was retweeted 687 times. Sommer's main point was that the correct information to come out afterwards gets a tiny fraction of the attention, and that's how misinformation spreads.

 

[Revnak]

Well, sort of-- he deleted the original tweet and added his clarification to that old tweet-thread, rather than tweeting anew. Plus, his original tweet straightforwardly stated as fact that it was a "left-wing activist", whereas the clarification he gave was more mealy-mouthed: "police are saying this now", rather than "this/I was incorrect".

But, yes, it counts for something. But the point of Will Sommer's tweet still stands. The fact remains that Andy Ngo's original (wrong) tweet was retweeted 13,000 times, and his clarification was retweeted 687 times. Sommer's main point was that the correct information to come out afterwards gets a tiny fraction of the attention, and that's how misinformation spreads.

Yes, but one of those is the fault of the inherent sinfulness of man which no individual virtuous soul can overcome .

 

[Exley97]

The original article or the updated version?
If it's the original article, do you have that archived somewhere? I've never seen it.
If it's the updated version, how do you know what it said originally?

You're misunderstanding the point.

This is Cheong's article, first archived in the Wayback Machine later that day. The headline is pretty clear: "BREAKING: Alleged Antifa militant shoots and kills conservative at 'Patriot Rally' in Denver"

BREAKING: Alleged Antifa militant shoots and kills conservative at 'Patriot Rally' in Denver

A shooting in Denver on Saturday afternoon at a “BLM-Antifa Soup Drive” has left a conservative demonstrator dead.

web.archive.org

In that article, Cheong attributes the information about the shooter to the Denver Post article, which he also archived. Here it is:

http://archive.is/d4SMT

So 1) why not admit your headline and article was changed instead of pretending like it wasn't edited after the fact? And 2) how does an ethical journalist source that link in his article about the shooter being Antifa when the original report doesn't mention anything about the shooter being Antifa? Either he didn't read it very closely, or he did and just didn't care. I'll leave it to you to decide which explanation you think is most plausible.

And really, that's just for starters. You mentioned in your earlier post that Cheong has "Tweeted about" the correction, but my guess is you haven't following his recent social media activity because Cheong has defiantly declared he was "right" about the shooter being Antifa and sourced THAT claim to an article on....the Gateway Pundit, which claims an anti-Trump Tweet proves the security guard was Antifa. And again, I leave it you to decide if citing Jim Hoft and Gateway Pundit are above board, journalistically speaking.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, but one of those is the fault of the inherent sinfulness of man which no individual virtuous soul can overcome .

Jack Dorsey can.

 

[Revnak]

Jack Dorsey can.

Yeah but Jack Dorsey is a cuck

 

[Houseman]

how does an ethical journalist source that link in his article about the shooter being Antifa when the original report doesn't mention anything about the shooter being Antifa?

It does, doesn't it? The Post article says "The counterprotest has been billed by organizers on Facebook as a “BLM-Antifa Soup Drive.”" and that he was shot by a "left-wing demonstrator"

Put the two together and you get "BLM-Antifa left-wing demonstrator" shot a right-wing demonstrator

You could argue that simplifying "BLM-Antifa" as "Antifa" is dishonest, though.

 

[Exley97]

It does, doesn't it? The Post article says "The counterprotest has been billed by organizers on Facebook as a “BLM-Antifa Soup Drive.”" and that he was shot by a "left-wing demonstrator"

Put the two together and you get "BLM-Antifa left-wing demonstrator" shot a right-wing demonstrator

You could argue that simplifying "BLM-Antifa" as "Antifa" is dishonest, though.

No. It doesn't. LOL, Not even Cheong made that weak argument...

And if you think that identifying a shooter in a homicide based on an arbitrarily-named intersection from social media is sufficient sourcing, then respectfully, you don't have a fucking clue about journalism ethics and standards.

 

[Houseman]

No. It doesn't.

Well, I quoted directly from the Post article that you linked, so are you saying that my quotes are made up?

And if you think that identifying a shooter in a homicide based on an arbitrarily-named intersection from social media is sufficient sourcing

Did not the Denver Post identify the shooter as a "left-wing demonstrator"?

 

[Exley97]

Well, I quoted directly from the Post article that you linked, so are you saying that my quotes are made up?



Did not the Denver Post identify the shooter as a "left-wing demonstrator"?

No, I'm not saying your quotes are made up. I'm saying:

1) "Left-wing demonstrator" and "Antifa" are obviously not the same the thing.
2) You insist they are, and that's why Cheong, Ngo, etc. still have an audience.

 

[Buyetyen]

Yeah but Jack Dorsey is a cuck

He also believes that a tent full of incandescent lightbulbs protects him from bad EM waves. Just thought everyone could use a reminder.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I am hearing rumours so far that the shooter has a social media history of Anti-Trump postings. If I find confirmation I'll post it.

 

[Revnak]

I am hearing rumours so far that the shooter has a social media history of Anti-Trump postings. If I find confirmation I'll post it.

Uh, so? Would a security guard count as a protester if you can find a topic you disagree with them on?

 

[Houseman]

Uh, so? Would a security guard count as a protester if you can find a topic you disagree with them on?

I would say that you wouldn't want to hire "security" that is biased against the people that he might be threatened by, much like how you wouldn't want to hire a racist cop.