who defines what is misinformation and by what standard? it seems any opinion that doesn't conform to mainstream ideologies are now labeled as misinformation.
the whole point of his article he published is you don't shut down opinions and works of other journalists just because you don't agree with it as an editor.
Misinformation is factually-incorrect information that is spread to push an agenda.
That's no so hard.
A news organization has a responsibility to find out if the news they are reporting is factually correct, and if it's important.
If they can't verify the facts, then they may just publish the people's claims, but again, the matter of importance comes in -- is the fact that someone is making the claim important? If someone in power says a lie about COVID, that may still be worth reporting, because the fact that a person in power misled is, itself, important. But if some rando political operatives push an unverifiable story, the fact that they are claiming it isn't itself a story, unless the facts are true.
I do think it _is_ hard as in: it is very hard to find out the truth.
“Misinformation is factually-incorrect information that is spread to push an agenda.
That's no so hard.”
Given enough power you can make look any “fact” as the truth. This has been accomplished a couple of times in the past. I.e. the war against Iraq started with the “fact” that there are mass destruction weapons. All mainstream media supported this “fact” when the war began. Turns out later there was no mass destruction weapon. Publicly admitted by the US government. So a “fact” for one person isn’t a “fact” for the other because both have a different perception of truth. But again, given enough power, you can manufacture consent and thus manufacture a “wrong truth”.
By way of example, his description of PRISM was factually incorrect to the point of making the people who read his articles more misinformed than people who hadn't. There is nothing ideological in what is a statement of fact and what is not, and Greenwald gets in trouble on that basic point.
OK so if journalists have to get 100% of what they say accurate then 99% of what we see reported today are "factually incorrect" and there won't be anyone left in the profession. Same goes with your point saying more opinion leads to more misinformation.
if that meant that we had to force the slate clean and start over with proper journalistic standards, i'd kind of be okay with that. if it also means that we could eliminate network talking heads opinion shows from being listed under a News banner, i'd be even more okay with it.
Greenwald's description wasn't 99% accurate. It was barely 5% accurate. The only thing accurate in it was that some program called PRISM exists. Every statement he made about what it does was wrong, which he could have avoided if he merely talked to someone computer literate or used his status as a journalist to call the people involved. The NY Times, CNET, and pretty much the rest of mainstream media got it correct and correctly identified PRISM as a non-story while focusing on phone metadata, which was questionably legal post-Carpenter.
> Same goes with your point saying more opinion leads to more misinformation.
I didn't say that more opinion leads to misinformation. I said nothing about opinion at all.
the whole point of his article he published is you don't shut down opinions and works of other journalists just because you don't agree with it as an editor.