Cross-posted from "The Guardian Retracts Their Coverage of the Shooter Being a Leftist" by @livejamie@lemmy.zip in !chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
564 points (98.5% liked)
politics
25685 readers
3960 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pathetic and disgraceful for the guardian.
The guardian is usually highly reputable. They’re one of the few left that I would consider reputable. Bit of a shame. At least they retracted it.
Meh, they are weak sisters. Look at their israel coverage, you should expect this.
Idk the retraction is pretty honest. Not to mention, that source may have said things originally, and not wanted to continue to say those same things afterwards for any number of reasons(they were lies or even, they don't feel comfortable being publicized)
Why did such an internationally respected english news source go with such flimsy evidence on a topic where the consequences of leaning into rightwing narratives are so high?
because none of these major publications aside from propublica and others like it value real journalism because we live in a world that is so full of the lie that getting the story first is more important than getting the story right. the guardian is better than many, but many people who work there came from news orgs that valued speed over accuracy. blame advertisers normalizing shit like getting every news org to investigate who al gore was going to pick for is running mate. a story that required no scoop. we were all gonna find out no matter what
Because it’s a live blog.
I don't think that excuses this.
Same reason they repeat israel's lies. They are weak.
A reasonable person would not feel comfortable being publicized in this context.
Unless they want to get on the talk show circuit
Par for the course for the left
Edit: I'm talking about receiving misplaced blame
Lol so do the right and center score +15 on this course typically? Or more like a DNF type awkward situation?
I'm talking about receiving misplaced blame.
ah gotcha!
It’s more like the golf scene from The Mask
Genuine question, why? They reported on the information they had, even if it wasn't flattering to the left. Then they retracted it when the information changed.
My neighbor Steve says he knew Robinson personally, even went to the same church, and it was a brain parasite that caused him to go crazy and shoot someone.
I'm just gonna print that in the New England Journal of Medicine, because after all, it's the information I have, and I can always retract it later, right?
/s 🙄
Misinformation is deeply dangerous and respectable journalists have a duty not to print bullshit in the first place. Sure, mistakes happen, but we don't just hand-wave it away with "well, they said sorry sooooo 🤷♀️".
If you're going to be the first to publish something consequential like this, you should have verified information from multiple sources, not a single phone interview.