Newsweek admits that they don't factcheck - MediaMatters

[flamingdem]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/08/21/newsweek-niall-ferguson-and-the-conservative-ec/189481

Newsweek's Admission Illustrates Exploitable Vulnerability In The Media

Niall Ferguson's Newsweek cover story on President Obama exemplifies a deficiency in today's media. As criticism of Ferguson's shoddy work mounted -- both from outside and inside of Newsweek/The Daily Beast -- Newsweek explained to Politico's Dylan Byers that Newsweek "rel[ies] on our writers to submit factually accurate material." Indeed, Byers also noted that Newsweek does not even have a fact-checking department.

Niall FergusonThis admission is disturbing on face. Newsweek wants to sell you stories and news about the world but can't even be bothered to check the claims it publishes. Even worse, they didn't seem all that uncomfortable with the admission. Newsweek's defense is that others are this lackadaisical at journalism, which is to say Newsweek has no defense. In a media environment without fact-checkers, it's no wonder we have fabulists and problems with facts and the media. But there's a more pernicious ramification of Newsweek's abdication of journalistic practices: This is what the predatory conservative echo-chamber and Fox News count on.

Fox and the right-wing echo chamber exploit these vulnerabilities in the media. When the media process seems shoddy (regardless of whether it actually is) and the result produces news that is inconsistent with conservative ideology, right-wing media pounce and attack the outlet as part of some left-wing media cabal. We've seen Fox do this from Dan Rather to Politico to ABC News to MSNBC and more. On the other hand, when they find the argument useful, the right-wing echo chamber can herald the piece and ignore inaccuracies within.

It's no surprise that while discussing Ferguson's article across multiple programs, Fox never discussed the myriad factual problems in Ferguson's piece that one could find with a rudimentary Google search. This is even as Ferguson's self-professed friend who writes for the same outlet called the piece "absurd propaganda."

more at link

[samsingh]

1. f off newsweek

[flamingdem]

2. That was shameful from them

zero standards apparently... perhaps benefitting from the billions that are beginning to be poured on us by the Reuglicans.

[monmouth]

3. Tina Brown

Tina Brown and crew appear to be hell-bent on crossing editorial lines by politicizing every issue in such a way that it reeks of partisan politics, by way of uber-radical journalists.

Does the Newsweek cover, clearly anti-Obama in scope, border on the rhetoric and style that has made other magazines and tabloids popular in mainstream America?

The National Enquirer profits on controversy. Perhaps, Tina Brown and company realize that with a struggling business model, it's time to court radical and far-left commentary while leaving fact-checking in the dust.

http://www.examiner.com/article/newsweek-cover-criticizing-obama-another-tina-brown-debacle

[flamingdem]

4. Well so far I'm not hearing any responsibility taken for fact checking

how low can you go Tina?

[ladym55]

5. Apparently nobody who is anybody fact checks

"Newsweek's defense is that others are this lackadaisical at journalism ..."

Is it any wonder people are so ignorant? They are told stupid by stupid or lazy or corporate hack.

[SunSeeker]

6. It didn't require ANY fact checking to see that cover was a ridiculous piece of propaganda.

Newsweek did manage to sell a lot of magazines to teabaggers as souvenirs. Apparently that is all it is in business to do these days.

[nxylas]

7. Is there any point to the M$M any more?

The standard defense against the inexorable rise of bloggers and sites like DU is that 1) journalists do the spadework while bloggers just report what journalists have found (which hasn't been true in years, 95% of journalists are content to merely rewrite press releases in their own words) ; and 2) a blogger can say anything, while "real" news sources fact-check their stories. Well, bang goes that argument.

(Edited to add: I'm aware that this was an opinion piece rather than a news story, but can you really trust the M$M when they plead that the fact checking of news stories is unimpeachable? Iraqi WMDs, anybody?)

[flamingdem]

8. Good point, with journalism like this

- the m$m is at the level of a blogging but still carries the weight of credibility at least for the moment

[ailsagirl]

9. I've had friends cancel their subscriptions. I hope others follow.