toomanyhatz wrote:Oh, I don't think his motivations are in question.
No, you can't slip out of the question so easily. I told you as honestly as I could what I concluded from the article. If you think it is business as usual at these media outlets - where mistakes do happen - why would Greenwald make the effort to call them out, to mock them? If you asked me the same question I'd say Greenwald found a perfect "man bites dog" story where he found a spate of mistaken news stories - all anti-Trump-Russia - which statistically did not add up. Strange, to say the least, thus real news.
If you are faulting me for calling, say, the Russia sabotaged the Vermont power grid story as "fake news" in the same vein as the "Three Headed Baby Ate My Lunch" story you got me. I was going for snark.
Still confused at what you're trying to convince me of here. Yes, there's a big
difference between the two - one was accurately reported based on the information that they had at the time (which was later corrected when the information turned out to be false), and the other one is invented/made up from whole cloth.
I mean, I guess
your point is that the media should have been suspicious of the story but weren't "because Russia Russia Russia!" But they didn't make up the story or exaggerate it or do anything other than accurately report what was reported to them. Blame the people that jumped to conclusions then, not the messenger.
I'm down with snark - I'll snark back and forth all day. But you DO actually seem to understand the difference. So why do you keep adding stuff that isn't fake news to a thread called "Fake News?"