There's a difference between legitimate opinion pieces and fraudulent/faked propaganda.
Which gets us back to the issue of Russian propaganda through social networks.
Washpo admit they got it wrong, at least.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/...
Why is it that you treat one case as "look at their evil propaganda" and the other as "oh gee practices could be better"?
Let me be honest with you. I'm European so I shouldn't really have a stake here. But I look at the world and what I see is that US media is infinitely more influential in Europe than Russian media. Infinitely more influential in Europe than even European media, and that concerns me. So your "oh gee practices could be better but we're the good guys trust me" doesn't fly with me.
Can you say the same for RT and Sputnik?
What about Fox News? Did they apologize?
> have engaged in considerable soul searching.
It is my opinion that absolutely nothing changed. It's still the same people with the same interests.
Thanks for the link, I'll read it.
Your representations (in this thread and elsewhere) simply fail to accurately reflect the facts.
What do you mean?
Both the NYTimes and the Washington Post published major editorials saying how they got it wrong. I'm sure other papers followed as well, but they were some of the more notable.
And it was hardly one story - it was a whole narrative about how they trusted that the White House was giving them information in good faith, and how they should have paid more attention to signs that faith was misplaced.
And yes - that faith was misplaced, and yes they should have paid more attention.
It is my opinion that absolutely nothing changed
Well, both papers became much more doubtful about any claims from the Bush administration after that.
And you may have noticed they were pretty harsh on Obama's claims of how easy health care would be. They also seem to be asking questions about some of the Trump administrations claims - or at least he seems to think they are being very unfair to him.
"The paper was not front-paging stuff," said Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks. "Administration assertions were on the front page. Things that challenged the administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday. There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?"
In retrospect, said Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., "we were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale. Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug...