Pathetic and disgraceful for the guardian.
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
540 points (98.4% liked)
politics
25745 readers
6242 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
Cross-posted from "The Guardian Retracts Their Coverage of the Shooter Being a Leftist" by @livejamie@lemmy.zip in !chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
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!
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.
So they just leave the headline alone? They know many people don't even go past that...
That bothered me too
Not a headline. It’s a live post not an article.
What's the difference?
An article is a self-contained narrative which should be researched and corroborated before publication. A live blog is less detailed and formal, is more immediate, and has a higher error rate as speed is the aim.
Why is a news organization publishing things that look like news articles but which have none of the elements of rigour that is expected of news organizations? Seems like something we should firmly reject.
It may look to you like a news article, but you’re seeing a screenshot in isolation. It’s a post on a liveblog, and readers aren’t going to confuse it with an article.
load more comments
(3 replies)
And that's how you incite a civil war.
Well played, brits! The redcoats have the final laugh. (/joke, because The Guardian is British)
What happened? Right-wingers suddenly don’t want to kill the killer and everyone he resembles? What changed?
Sheesh, and that's the Guardian. One of the last good ones.
Just Grauniad things. Maybe they shouldn’t have stuck all their sub-editors on zero hours contracts and fired them before they got tenure.
A war would be the biggest story of their lifetimes.
But how do they profit? Like soldiers and conscripts aren't going to be paying them a subscription fee.
They want to be the next Walter Cronkite.
"Very hard Republicans" comedians are out of the job the way these jokes write themselves.
Can't retract what that casing said, lmao
"Catch this fascist"
Is the new
"I SHOT REAGAN"
Fuck fascism.
The casings were engraved with groyper memes, yes.
Ah shit, a guy who shot up a school likes 4chan? Who could've seen that coming. Now it's a lemmy meme. You looked at this ur gay.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Tyler Robinson shot Kirk. The Colorado school shooter from the same day is a different person.
And those aren't Lemmy memes - do you know what a groyper is?
Awh shit, wrong thread lmao
I haven't seen any convincing evidence of this yet. It's definitely a possibility, but we shouldn't act like it's been confirmed.
As I said in another comment, groypers and their ilk coopt existing symbols to identify themselves. They act in the realm of plausible deniability, making it very hard to prove who is and isn't part of the movement.
Most of the inscriptions could also support the conclusion that he's on the left. (More plausibly than they support the groyper idea, imo)
Or maybe he's just a nihilist who wanted to be famous and filled the bullets with ironic memes and video game references.
The case is not closed on his motivations.
Every single thing was a groyper meme.
He wore a trump costume. He wore a Pepe costume.
If each casing existed in a vaccum, and there were no other information whatsoever (like his father wearing 3 percenter shirts, the costumes, even the timing of him becoming political) I'd be able to agree with you.
I'm not saying his motives are confirmed, but to say he's not a groyper would be ignoring the information we do have.
he's mormon. is that part of the far right christian nationalist coalition or not?
Mormons are more libertarian than they are far right in my book.
I think shit like Nick Fuentes and actual Nazis are far right.
The 'leftist' dressed up as the rapist on Hallowe'en to own maga.
I think it's entirely possible they don't have an ideology, and they were shitposting IRL.
The Trump costume is confusing because you don't know if he's wearing it to mock him, to support him, or if he just wanted to do it to trigger people.
I'm seeing very little (mainstream) coverage that he's a groyper. What's up with that? Is that considered not yet verified? Is that being held back so we can talk about his roommate/possible girlfriend that is trans and harp on that instead of him being a groyper and/or Fuentes fan?
I think it's entirely possible that he was apolitical and just shitposting IRL.
His socials have been leaked, and there wasn't anything in there.
view more: next ›