Posted on 11/20/2019 7:21:51 AM PST by grundle
Reuters recently reported the following. And please keep in mind that I am quoting the article in its entirety:
Story on U.N. study on child detentions withdrawn
November 18, 2019
GENEVA (Reuters) – A Nov. 18 story headlined “U.S. has world’s highest rate of children in detention -U.N. study” is withdrawn. The United Nations issued a statement on Nov. 19 saying the number was not current but was for the year 2015. No replacement story will be issued.
Why did Reuters withdraw the original online article, instead of adding a correction to it?
Why isn’t Reuters publishing a replacement article?
The actions of media outlets like CNN, Reuters, AP, MSNBC, etc... make sense if you realize they are not merely biased. They are beyond that. They are kept and controlled media oligarchies, who maintain their positions of power and influence because they cooperate with government and the deep state. View them no differently from PRAVDA or China People’s Daily.
Did our media ever criticize the ObaMao regime?
The fake story that was not retracted will be available for centuries for all to see and believe. It will be cited and quoted. That’s why it wasn’t retracted.
Does anyone doubt that they (MSM) are 24/7 propagandists for the Democrat/CPUSA(Communist Party USA)?
Why isn’t Reuters publishing a replacement article?
Because they're Reuters, not an honest news source.
They cooperate with government only when it will harm the cause of freedom. They sincerely believe that when the hard left takes over, they will be looked to as those in charge. The career bureaucrats will have lots to say about THAT...
Eliminating the career bureaucrat should be on an equal footing with eliminating career politicians through term limits. If it doesn't happen things can only get worse.
YES. I say this to everyone who wants "term limits." Your elected representatives, no matter how flawed, are the last, dying power the public have. There is NO limit on government bureaucrats time in office, their programs, or the debt and spending that feed them. They are the real power in America today.
Years ago, when Bush, jr was in office, I was in debate with a liberal on an internet message board. I cant recall what we were arguing about, but i do recall that sometime during our debate he brought up a piece of legislation, the act of 2000 something or other. He denounced it and denounced bush for signing it.
I pointed out to him that it wasnt bush who signed that legislation into law. It was bill clinton. I added, now that he knows who truly signed it, does he still oppose it or does he now support it? He didnt answer. Instead he just deleted his message.
bfl
We must acknowledge that 95% of the media are Scum — lying scum.
bkmk
“Half the truth is often a great lie” - Benjamin FranklinSince nobody ever tells the whole truth - “Ain’t nobody got time for that” - the attitude and perspective of the writer has to color any report.
The decision to withdraw rather than correct a story when the villain of the piece turns out to be a Democrat instead of a Republican simply reveals that the editor of the publication favors the Democrat Party. There’s no law against that - and there shouldn’t be, and under the First Amendment there can’t be. But.
The actual problem is the existence of the journalism cartel, spontaneously generated by the wire services and empowered by the Warren Court’s unanimous - unanimously wrong - 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision.
Objection to the claim that American journalism is a cartel is fatuous. Evidence which can be criticized as “anecdotal“ abounds, but what cannot be refuted is that the wire services constitute continual virtual meetings of all major US journalism. “Meetings” which began before the Civil War and are ongoing with not end in sight. The logical implication is drawn by Adam Smith: People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” It is naive to believe that journalists whose entire culture is defined by meeting among themselves about business - and who belong to organizations with names like “Associated” Press or “United” Press International - would not take behavior which is actually “conspiracy against the public” for granted as unexceptionable “business as usual.”
The wire services and their member/subscriber outlets are wide open for antitrust suits or prosecution.
To see the “conspiracy against the public,” it is logical to evaluate the actual business model of journalism. Journalism is actually about bad news. Consequently journalism is systematically negative - which naturally tends to imply that “the government should do something” about one situation or another. Journalism is negative towards society, but claims to be objective. But claiming that “negativity is objectivity” is nothing if not a description of cynicism.
The cartel’s claim of objectivity has the effect of redefining “objectivity” to mean cynicism towards society (and naiveté towards government). The cartel systematically rejects applying the term “objective” to anyone outside the cartel - and systematically labels that member of the cartel “objective.” But the cynical conspiracy doesn’t end there; the cartel also redefines every politically positive adjective - starting with “liberal,” but including “centrist,” “moderate,” and “progressive” - to mean exactly what they make “objective” mean (differing from “objective" only in the usage the cartel will allow).
The cartel eliminates ideological competition among journalists. The Sullivan decision - which eliminates libel suits by Republican government officials (“liberals” obviously don’t get libeled) - entitles “liberals” and “objective journalists” not only to their own opinions but to their own facts. And that is the engine of Political Correctness; Republicans are denied any peaceable venue to establish facts not congenial to “liberals.”
The fallacy of the Sullivan decision is that it justifies itself with the claim that ‘'libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment.” One is tempted to take that at face value, but Antonin Scalia pointed out that The Bill of Rights was intentionally structured not to compromise the right to sue for libel. The purpose of the entire BoR was to assure everyone that the Constitution did not compromise any right; the great project of the creation of the strong Federal Government depended on the success of that project. The Ninth Amendment practically says exactly that, and the wording “the freedom . . . of the press” in the First Amendment refers to traditional freedom of the press as traditionally limited (by libel and pornography laws, for example).
“Half the truth is often a great lie” - Benjamin FranklinSince nobody ever tells the whole truth - “Ain’t nobody got time for that” - the attitude and perspective of the writer has to color any report.
The decision to withdraw rather than correct a story when the villain of the piece turns out to be a Democrat instead of a Republican simply reveals that the editor of the publication favors the Democrat Party. There’s no law against that - and there shouldn’t be, and under the First Amendment there can’t be. But.
The actual problem is the existence of the journalism cartel, spontaneously generated by the wire services and empowered by the Warren Court’s unanimous - unanimously wrong - 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision.
Objection to the claim that American journalism is a cartel is fatuous. Evidence which can be criticized as “anecdotal“ abounds, but what cannot be refuted is that the wire services constitute continual virtual meetings of all major US journalism. “Meetings” which began before the Civil War and are ongoing with not end in sight. The logical implication is drawn by Adam Smith: People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” It is naive to believe that journalists whose entire culture is defined by meeting among themselves about business - and who belong to organizations with names like “Associated” Press or “United” Press International - would not take behavior which is actually “conspiracy against the public” for granted as unexceptionable “business as usual.”
The wire services and their member/subscriber outlets are wide open for antitrust suits or prosecution.
To see the “conspiracy against the public,” it is logical to evaluate the actual business model of journalism. Journalism is actually about bad news. Consequently journalism is systematically negative - which naturally tends to imply that “the government should do something” about one situation or another. Journalism is negative towards society, but claims to be objective. But claiming that “negativity is objectivity” is nothing if not a description of cynicism.
The cartel’s claim of objectivity has the effect of redefining “objectivity” to mean cynicism towards society (and naiveté towards government). The cartel systematically rejects applying the term “objective” to anyone outside the cartel - and systematically labels that member of the cartel “objective.” But the cynical conspiracy doesn’t end there; the cartel also redefines every politically positive adjective - starting with “liberal,” but including “centrist,” “moderate,” and “progressive” - to mean exactly what they make “objective” mean (differing from “objective" only in the usage the cartel will allow).
The cartel eliminates ideological competition among journalists. The Sullivan decision - which eliminates libel suits by Republican government officials (“liberals” obviously don’t get libeled) - entitles “liberals” and “objective journalists” not only to their own opinions but to their own facts. And that is the engine of Political Correctness; Republicans are denied any peaceable venue to establish facts not congenial to “liberals.”
The fallacy of the Sullivan decision is that it justifies itself with the claim that ‘'libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment.” One is tempted to take that at face value, but Antonin Scalia pointed out that The Bill of Rights was intentionally structured not to compromise the right to sue for libel. The purpose of the entire BoR was to assure everyone that the Constitution did not compromise any right; the great project of the creation of the strong Federal Government depended on the success of that project. The Ninth Amendment practically says exactly that, and the wording “the freedom . . . of the press” in the First Amendment refers to traditional freedom of the press as traditionally limited (by libel and pornography laws, for example).
There are 6 media companies/corporations that exist today. There used to be 88. These 6 ALL get their news from 2 existing wire services, Reuters and Associated Press. They all have leftist, globalist leanings.
(Reuters used to be owned by the historical, powerful, globally-tentacled Rothschild banking family till it was sold in 2008 to the Thompson family).
(There are, of course, individual writers and web sites, etc. across the fruited plain who do personal views, opinions and other writings, reporting, news gathering, etc., but we're talking about the "official" monopolistic, gigantic hard news gatherers and disseminators).
Therefore, we get ALL our media information from 6 corporations who get ALL their info from 2 news-gathering sources.
Are we really getting the TRUTH?
Leni
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.