Judge rules Alex Jones can't use bankruptcy to avoid paying $1.1 billion to Sandy Hook families | CNN Business

submitted by ActuallyNot from edition.cnn.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What are you thinking?

CNN correct and retract their stories all the time. Literally all the time, major publishers will put "this story was updated" in one way or another.

If you're seriously telling me that you believe CNN do not publish corrections and retractions, then ... seriously what are you even thinking?

It's a legal thing, by the way, during libel or slander cases (or in Infowars case, malicious harassment). The punishment is weakened if the publisher corrects/retracts.

I'll give you a great example -

Alex Jones told a big lie about Chobani yoghurt.

Chobani Yogurt sued Infowars.

Infowars put out a retraction

And as a result, legally, Chobani couldn't go after Infowars for serious damages like the sandy hook families

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/alex-jones-chobani-lawsuit.html

Infowars had the wherewithal to take steps to minimize their legal exposure, by publishing a retraction.....but you're telling me CNN with all their lawyers don't? What are you even thinking

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Does it matter though? News publishes stories like "John Doe of Tinseltown accused of rape" all the time and after he's been fired and or forced to resign from his job they may later publish a "retraction" in the form of a clarification that the accusation held no water and was unceremoniously thrown out. But in the court of public opinion the damage is done by then.

It's not a false story either. It's not wrong to say that someone was accused of something. It reflects more a problem with our society and the tendency to engage in mob justice than anything. But I can't sit around lamenting that. I do think news agencies need to take more responsibility for the damage to people's reputation that reporting on baseless accusations makes.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not literally all the time. You've taken my statement as: "They never do" instead of the intended: "They do when it's something they don't mind admitting, but when it's a big lie that they are purposely trying to present as fact, they choose not to."

They have a bias, and they continue to display it. They do print withdrawals sometimes, but they also don't when it suits them even when they have been publicly displayed to be factually false. Maybe most importantly, they do so when it suits their bias and continue to run with stories they categorically know to be false. If you want to go example by example, we can all day, but I'm sure you're smart enough to know there are important examples available. You could look at most of Trump's time in office or the run up to his election and find stories that, to this day, remain unapologetically on their pages or have been quietly removed without apology or correction.

I'm sure Infowars is a cluster fuck. As I said, I was with you all the way until that statement - But to suggest that news sites, especially American, politically aligned ones like CNN, retract and correct when their agenda is in question?... C'mon, be intellectually honest and fair. Drag Infowars for their mistakes, but don't pretend like CNN, your go-to-Trump is a Russian plant network, is the pillar of honesty in reporting.