News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Al Frankens main accuser was a republican trying to add to her star power and the story was first published by her republican radio station that openly admitted to not fact checking. The reporters here DID dig. It's in the article. They saw texts, spoke to people who were told of the events at the time, and have medical records. This guy is being accused by people who used to work for him and are openly on the left. I understand wanting to wait for more information to come out or more to be corroborated, but it feels dismissive to compare this to the Al Franken situation regardless. This is being published by a reputable outlet and they seem to have a lot of people willing to back up these accounts with contemporaneous evidence.
To use the defensive letter saying "well you asked for a letter of recommendation" as evidence that this is at all like the Al Franken thing seems like a misunderstanding of who accused these people and of what.
And yet, you are all acting exactly the same. CNN can NOT be trusted. Again, I'm not saying he didn't do it, let's wait a few days before we tar and* feather him.
I'm not acting any way about him. I haven't called for his resignation or even an apology. I originally pointed out that having stayed in contact is not a valid defense against abuse. When you reiterated a concern regarding a similarity to the situation with Al Franken, I pointed out the ways in which this differed. You can disagree if you feel as though a CNN article that states text evidence was obtained has an equivalent journalistic value to a right wing radio station running with a story their host brought, but I was just pointing out how this situation differs.
It seemed to me like you felt you had to rush to his defense because of a letter in which he stated there was ongoing contact between them. I think wanting to see how things shake out is fine, but quoting his defense and comparing it to the Al Franken situation makes it seem like you think it's a lie. That's ok if that's your perception and you'd like to share that, but it didn't come across as "wait and see" it came across as a defense. Just my 2 cents on the matter.