- Joined
- Jul 27, 2021
Weigel is an obese pockmarked sack of shit who deserves this and worse. if this was happening to one of his coworkers he would be the first on the dogpile.
praecones delendum est
praecones delendum est
Careercow Taylor Lorenz - Crybully "journalist", self-appointed Internet Hall Monitor, professional victim, stalks teenagers for e-clout
- Thread starter Meat Target
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
autistic dog
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2021
The left has had anything they shit out praised and amplified for years. The right has been sharpened by the iron of constant attacks and censorship. It is just being noticed now because right wing is starting to learn how to properly fight. Things like archiving and in person activism are finally turning the tide.
Lord of the Pajeets
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2018
lolwatagain
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2017
This can't be real. Am I just
? Please tell me there is a copy of this agreement out there.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2021
He even reiterated himself to this guy:View attachment 3365988
This can't be real. Am I just
(https://archive.ph/at1gm)
Wargarbl
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2016
If he has the goods, he should post the goods.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
the Washington Post got a little less bipolar today.
The New York Times said:
CNN said:
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2021
Wait, does that mean they got a little more bisexual too?
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
Open Window Maniac
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2021
More like Gaylor Lorenz, if you what I'm saying?
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2022
Honestly Journos deserve their a community watch. Many are euphoric, and genuinely believe their word is law. Girl I know from high school became a journo for a local affiliate and when we talked about the Rittenhouse and I showed her all the videos to the best of my ability, instead of admitting she didn't have the full story she asked who fact checked my videos. I called her retarded and we haven't spoken since
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2022
Sorry for my earlier Fed Post mods.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
You want it. Start it. Taylor deserves a thread all for his lonesome.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
This appears to be about an op-ed from Erik Wemple.
Taylor Lorenz said an editor was to blame. Is that okay?
Washington Post staff writer Taylor Lorenz on Saturday posted a Twitter thread declaring that it was not she who inserted an erroneous line into her article. It was her editor. “I did not write the line and was not aware it was inserted,” wrote Lorenz.
“This should have been a small correction for a miscommunication, but it turned into a multi-day media cycle, intentionally aimed at discrediting the Washington Post and me.”
One takeaway from Lorenz’s thread was unmistakable: “In a series of tweets, Lorenz blames her editor for having inserted the error into her story and says she is the victim of a ‘bad faith’ campaign,” tweeted CNN senior media reporter Oliver Darcy.
Blaming editors for mistakes sounds like a craven act, and indeed it can be. But it also happens occasionally at prominent U.S. media outlets. Lorenz’s pointed tua culpa is at odds with the spirit of Post policy, however. And in this case, it received approval from The Post’s masthead, according to a source at the paper. A Post spokesperson says, “We provided input that we asked she take into consideration.”
The imbroglio kicked off a week ago with the publication of Lorenz’s article on the Internet content creators who thrived from the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation trial. The original version said that two creators — Alyte Mazeika and the anonymous ThatUmbrellaGuy — had been contacted for comment. FoxNews.com reported that the paper deleted that claim with a stealth edit. The Post published a series of corrections and an editor’s note attempting to address the situation. It now reads:
Hot Air’s John Sexton pointed out that by Lorenz’s own account, she didn’t contact either YouTuber for comment until after the story went live — a circumstance in conflict with the editor’s note, and which indicates that the request for comment to Mazeika occurred prior to publication via Instagram.
We’ve asked The Post for clarification on this point, because it matters: If The Post can’t nail down the facts in an editor’s note, where else should we trust it to do so? “That stands as is,” says a Post spokesperson. “We won’t be able to get into what the internal discussions were.”
Another question hanging over the editor’s note relates to policy. What if the first iteration had asserted that the mistake came off the keyboard of an editor? Any such declaration would grind against a long-standing provision of The Post’s standards guide, which reads, “We do not attribute blame to individual reporters or editors (e.g. ‘because of a reporting error’ or ‘because of an editing error’). But we may note that an error was the result of a production problem or because incorrect information came to us from a trusted source (wire services, individuals quoted, etc.).” The policy controls how the newspaper articulates corrections and editor’s notes, and has a more tenuous sway over tweets and other statements from The Post.
In a 2006 column, then-Post ombudsman Deborah Howell traced the philosophical roots of The Post’s aversion to “due to an editing error.” Then-executive editor Len Downie told Howell, “Reporters get bylines and prizes when they do well, and editors don’t.” Peter Baker, then a White House correspondent at The Post, countered, “Writers are held accountable because our names are on the bylines. Why should writers be held accountable when it’s not their fault?”
Correct, says the New York Times. Close readers of that newspaper know that general assignment reporter Christine Chung did not bungle the status of Lincoln College in Illinois, which is a predominantly Black college, not a historically Black college, as her May 9 story originally reported. That’s because a correction frontally addresses the provenance of the mistake: “Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misidentified Lincoln College as a historically Black college. It is a predominantly Black college, not a Department of Education-listed H.B.C.U.”
Philip B. Corbett, associate managing editor for standards at the Times, tells the Erik Wemple Blog via email, “[T]hat has long been our normal practice. It’s simply an effort to be fair to reporters — whose names are on the story — and shield them from criticism if they aren’t to blame for a mistake.”
Many outlets, including CNN, the Associated Press, USA Today, Slate, MSNBC, the Daily Beast — and, yes, even The Post! — have at least dabbled in this formulation (though a CNN spokeswoman notes that it’s not policy to attribute mistakes to editors, and an AP spokeswoman writes via email, “Corrections generally focus on what is being corrected”).
Decades ago, The Post’s institutional approach to corrections made more sense. The work of reporters back then wasn’t flyspecked on social media sites, dissected for mistakes and repurposed for the next instance of wrongdoing, or alleged wrongdoing. These days, it is. If the argument for The Post’s policy were ever correct, it’s not anymore.
And if The Post revisits its correction policy, it may want to lay down a guideline or two about how its journalists respond to social media brouhahas. “We have a responsibility to recognize these bad faith campaigns for what they are and when these sorts of things do and do not warrant acknowledgment,” wrote Lorenz after the uproar over her Depp-Heard piece. She also rapped CNN: “This type of coverage is so irresponsible & dangerous,” Lorenz wrote on Twitter. “It’s misrepresenting my words to amplify a manufactured outrage campaign by right wing media & radicalized influencers, which is driving a vicious harassment/smear campaign against me. CNN is gleefully piling on.”
That outrage works much better when a 135-word editor’s note isn’t hanging over your article.
“This should have been a small correction for a miscommunication, but it turned into a multi-day media cycle, intentionally aimed at discrediting the Washington Post and me.”
One takeaway from Lorenz’s thread was unmistakable: “In a series of tweets, Lorenz blames her editor for having inserted the error into her story and says she is the victim of a ‘bad faith’ campaign,” tweeted CNN senior media reporter Oliver Darcy.
Blaming editors for mistakes sounds like a craven act, and indeed it can be. But it also happens occasionally at prominent U.S. media outlets. Lorenz’s pointed tua culpa is at odds with the spirit of Post policy, however. And in this case, it received approval from The Post’s masthead, according to a source at the paper. A Post spokesperson says, “We provided input that we asked she take into consideration.”
The imbroglio kicked off a week ago with the publication of Lorenz’s article on the Internet content creators who thrived from the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation trial. The original version said that two creators — Alyte Mazeika and the anonymous ThatUmbrellaGuy — had been contacted for comment. FoxNews.com reported that the paper deleted that claim with a stealth edit. The Post published a series of corrections and an editor’s note attempting to address the situation. It now reads:
Hot Air’s John Sexton pointed out that by Lorenz’s own account, she didn’t contact either YouTuber for comment until after the story went live — a circumstance in conflict with the editor’s note, and which indicates that the request for comment to Mazeika occurred prior to publication via Instagram.
We’ve asked The Post for clarification on this point, because it matters: If The Post can’t nail down the facts in an editor’s note, where else should we trust it to do so? “That stands as is,” says a Post spokesperson. “We won’t be able to get into what the internal discussions were.”
Another question hanging over the editor’s note relates to policy. What if the first iteration had asserted that the mistake came off the keyboard of an editor? Any such declaration would grind against a long-standing provision of The Post’s standards guide, which reads, “We do not attribute blame to individual reporters or editors (e.g. ‘because of a reporting error’ or ‘because of an editing error’). But we may note that an error was the result of a production problem or because incorrect information came to us from a trusted source (wire services, individuals quoted, etc.).” The policy controls how the newspaper articulates corrections and editor’s notes, and has a more tenuous sway over tweets and other statements from The Post.
In a 2006 column, then-Post ombudsman Deborah Howell traced the philosophical roots of The Post’s aversion to “due to an editing error.” Then-executive editor Len Downie told Howell, “Reporters get bylines and prizes when they do well, and editors don’t.” Peter Baker, then a White House correspondent at The Post, countered, “Writers are held accountable because our names are on the bylines. Why should writers be held accountable when it’s not their fault?”
Correct, says the New York Times. Close readers of that newspaper know that general assignment reporter Christine Chung did not bungle the status of Lincoln College in Illinois, which is a predominantly Black college, not a historically Black college, as her May 9 story originally reported. That’s because a correction frontally addresses the provenance of the mistake: “Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misidentified Lincoln College as a historically Black college. It is a predominantly Black college, not a Department of Education-listed H.B.C.U.”
Philip B. Corbett, associate managing editor for standards at the Times, tells the Erik Wemple Blog via email, “[T]hat has long been our normal practice. It’s simply an effort to be fair to reporters — whose names are on the story — and shield them from criticism if they aren’t to blame for a mistake.”
Many outlets, including CNN, the Associated Press, USA Today, Slate, MSNBC, the Daily Beast — and, yes, even The Post! — have at least dabbled in this formulation (though a CNN spokeswoman notes that it’s not policy to attribute mistakes to editors, and an AP spokeswoman writes via email, “Corrections generally focus on what is being corrected”).
Decades ago, The Post’s institutional approach to corrections made more sense. The work of reporters back then wasn’t flyspecked on social media sites, dissected for mistakes and repurposed for the next instance of wrongdoing, or alleged wrongdoing. These days, it is. If the argument for The Post’s policy were ever correct, it’s not anymore.
And if The Post revisits its correction policy, it may want to lay down a guideline or two about how its journalists respond to social media brouhahas. “We have a responsibility to recognize these bad faith campaigns for what they are and when these sorts of things do and do not warrant acknowledgment,” wrote Lorenz after the uproar over her Depp-Heard piece. She also rapped CNN: “This type of coverage is so irresponsible & dangerous,” Lorenz wrote on Twitter. “It’s misrepresenting my words to amplify a manufactured outrage campaign by right wing media & radicalized influencers, which is driving a vicious harassment/smear campaign against me. CNN is gleefully piling on.”
That outrage works much better when a 135-word editor’s note isn’t hanging over your article.
ETA: the "harrassers":
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
I honestly can't tell if Taylor is completely retarded or merely genre saavy in screaming to her followers about "a radicalized influencer who helped perpetuate gamergate" while ignoring that Wemple's article had nothing to do with that and only mentioned the two separate people Taylor lied about getting comments from to provide the background to the story. She's basically complaining that Wemple did his job properly by providing the background while completely ignoring that the thesis and criticism of the article could be completely detached from that information and would still apply to her.
Evidence for "genre saavy" would be how she worded the tweet in such a way that she's basically accusing Wemple of "attacking a female journalist" while not naming him.
Evidence for "completely retarded" would be how she's doing this right after her partner in insanity Felicia Sonmez got fired by WaPo for doing similar things as Taylor.
Evidence for "genre saavy" would be how she worded the tweet in such a way that she's basically accusing Wemple of "attacking a female journalist" while not naming him.
Evidence for "completely retarded" would be how she's doing this right after her partner in insanity Felicia Sonmez got fired by WaPo for doing similar things as Taylor.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2021
That's the thing that always gets them in the end, it's a very fine line between being genre savvy and completely retarded. An over abundance of the former often leads to the latter as well...
F_Break
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
Why would she behave any differently when she's been able to cry and whine her way out of every self inflicted ethical quandary across numerous publications. She got the New York Times sued, pulled a Felicia Sonmez on her way out, and WaPo still hired her despite off the record warnings from NYT staff. They knew exactly what they were getting when they hired her and were more than happy to cover for her ethical "lapses" right up until she joined forces with Sonmez on twitter to form the ultimate grievance mongering cluster B megazord. She comes from money so it's not like she has much to worry about if WaPo fires her next, and I'm sure there's plenty of woke click farms desperate enough to hire her no matter what.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
I just figured she might wait more than a day after her buddy got fired to get back to it. Like maybe start back up next week. Now I'm pretty much totally inclined to believe the "safe space" thing.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
What is her alleged preexisting condition, other than preferring to live in a reptile terrarium?
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2021
