Oh come on now Newsweek - can't you even just try to get it right?

Okay, the story - some white US Army NCO stationed at Fort Jackson is - for some reason - berating and threatening a black civilian walking near his house. Fucked up if true, but all the details as to any history between the two have yet to be revealed.

Okay that said, check out the article's title:
Protesters Surround House Believed to Be Army Captain's Seen on Video Harassing Black Man (msn.com)

If he's a fucking drill sergeant (an NCO) how the hell can he be a commissioned officer (rank of captain) at the same time? Is he like Schrodinger's cat and shit?

"The alleged aggressor is reported to be U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Captain Jonathan Pentland, whose social media accounts showed Pentland has been stationed as a drill sergeant at Fort Jackson since 2019, according to the Associated Press."

Newsweek and the International Business Times are both owned by a religious cult, so I try to avoid anything they publish.

I thought Newsweek is (or was) a pretty well known & dependable news source. They have been around for a long time ASAIK.

Nope. https://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/

They were when they were owned by the Washington Post. They're supposedly "independently owned" now. According to the ever-reliable *ahem* Wikipedia, they haven't used fact checkers since 1996. They're such a bit player these days that they've pretty much faded into irrelevance and aren't part of the "MSM" that you'd love to discredit.

Newsweek is rated center.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/newsweek

Mother Jones is rated left.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/mother-jones-bias

ya don't say! What's up with that, media SME Mike?

So? That has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of the publication. Newsweek’s gotten raked over the coals by just about everyone for their shoddy journalism since the cult bought them. When they returned to print a couple of years ago, their big comeback issue was dedicated to “exposing” the guy who created Bitcoin. None of their shit checked out and they’ve never bothered to print a retraction of the story.

Again, so? Aren’t you the one who’s always bitching because people refuse to read an article because they don’t trust the source? Just because a news organization has a bias doesn’t mean that they’re inherently inaccurate (though the bias can indicate how reliable of a source they are on certain matters). Mother Jones has a pretty good track record when it comes to their reporting and tend to backup their stories to reliable sources. I don’t trust them 100% on anything, but they’re one of a number of news outlets that have pointed out that Newsweek and IBT are owned by a cult. I grabbed that link because it was the first one that came up in the search I did.

Mother Jones is indeed a liberal outfit. However, that bias is reflected more in their choice of stories than anything else. I'm sure they make mistakes like any publication does, but they use facts to back up their reporting. Much the same is true of the Orange County Register. One of the places their bias shows up has been their constant anti-pension stance. They HATE pensions...especially government pensions. However, as far as I know they use accurate figures in their reporting. I don't agree with their interpretation of that issue but as far as I know they don't lie. The Economist is another "conservative" publication I enjoy reading. Their commentary is thought provoking and informed. "Bias" is one thing, lying is quite a different issue. FWIW, the times I've been pressured to slant stories it came from the right.

could that be because the slant coming from the left is constantly implied/the default position? In other words if you didn't lean left in the first place you wouldn't even be employed?
You know, one of those unwritten rules or an open secret. Not accusing you per se, just saying that it's been known to happen in the media.

Link?

What does the notion that Newsweek apparently incorrectly stated his rank have to do with its/media bias?

News reporters, unfortunately, just like any other people, make mistakes all the time.

There's no reason to think that they called him a captain when he was really only a sergeant because it was some conscious or subconscious attempt to slam the military or right-wingers, unless I'm missing something.

Everybody knows it and a lot of people say it and some people have told him that, so why does he need a link? We'll just look at and if it's bullshit we'll say that it's not credible, so why bother?

This.

Everybody makes mistakes at their job and they're full of shit if they think they don't.

NBC made one in their evening news just yesterday.

So what do you think allows some white racist fuck to demand a black resident get out of whitey's neighborhood and assault him? Is their some legal way for you to do something like that? It is not whitey McRacist's neighborhood.

As for his rankings we can all hope he is dishonerably discharged and ends up homeless in the gutter because no one will hire his worthless ass after he gets out of jail.

But any mistake, no matter how small, is very important if you're looking for an excuse to dismiss inconvenient information that conflicts with your overall world view.

This is clearly @oldfella1962 's go to move. He barely mentions the clear assault that happened because his Nazi friend decided to go threaten a black resident of his neighborhood and assault him telling him he is not welcome in the whypipo's neighborhood. Instead he is trying to totally discount what we saw with our own eyes by pretending that a mistake in ranking som3ehow invalidates the clear video and the arrest for assault of Nazi man.

I don't give a shit if he is a four star general, the Nazi belongs in jail with the other animals. There is no excuse for doing what he did. It is not his job, nor his responsibility. As a matter of fact it is his responsibility to not harass and assault people for being black. But like always OF wants to make it about something else because he needs to defend the white criminal assaulting a black man because he is a closet Nazi.

It has nothing to do with the OP. If Newsweek truly is owned by a religious cult, you’d think that would show in their reporting and they wouldn’t be rated center. Maybe Mr. Facepalm isn’t as smart as he thinks he is and is just the number one seller at the jerk store. That’s what is has to do with.

It's a perfect example of how some people seek information to reinforce a pre-existing notion and how others examine facts about an issue then reach a decision.

Here's the thing:

Just like people in almost any context, publishers/CEOs are going to vary. Some are going to have a major agenda even to the point of running roughshod over the newsroom promoting it. Some are going to buy into the traditional notion that that there should be a Great Wall between the newsroom's editorial decisions and the political/business interests of the ownership. And some publishers/CEOS give no f---s about anything more than making shareholders happy and maximizing profit and bonuses.

Assuming that Newsweek is owned by a cult, the leadership of that cult could be anywhere along the political spectrum, and it could have anywhere on the spectrum from heavy-handed on the editorial product to indifferent to idealistic. It could be that the cult is center-right and the management pushes for coverage that's center-right. Or the cult is socialist, but the journalists there are independent enough to make the product centrist.

And that's of course without factoring in that whoever rated these media outlets might just be off in the first place about where they belong.

Honey, I'm home! Home from work of course, so now I can address some comments before Tererun's tiny head explodes (I hate when that happens!)
Okay, here's the deal: I'm not concerned with whether Newsweek leans left, right, or neither. I just know they are are a pretty well known news source - they aren't some local yokels. Thus if they are covering a story that has things they have no experience with, take a minute to do some research. Is that too much to ask? A sergeant/captain is nonsensical. It would be like saying for example
"the robbery suspect took off in a north/south direction in a Chevrolet SUV 1972 Stingray bicycle".

Addressing Tererun - yes, racism is bad. That said I have no idea why the NCO was out in the street assaulting the guy. But he was charged and will be dealt with accordingly both from the Army and the civilian system. All I know is I wouldn't want a loud mouth physically aggressive individual like big sarge in my neighborhood.

So, because they got that wrong, does that mean you can dismiss the entire story?

There is a reason you pulled this article in here and went with the angle you did. Those of us who watched the video know he attacked a black guy in his neighborhood and physically assaulted him because he does not want the black guy in his neighborhood. If he was going around assaulting the white people in his neighborhood for walking around then he would already be in jail for assault. So we know this is racial because it only happened to the black resident and not the white ones.

You wanted so badly to distract from this obvious bit of racism that you made a huge deal over some wrong rank. Talk about your classic racist deflection. Who the fuck reads that and comes away with the wrong rank? It is like watching the kenedy assasination tape and going off on how the street had a pothole. You are purposefully missing the point to try and distract from your Nazi friend attacking a black guy where he lives.

but keep on keeping on with your pretending this was not another episode in OF the racist.

Newsweek corrected their story.

We can all rest easy now.

Does that mean OF doesn't get to reject the story out of hand now?

Watching the video, I really hope that shitfuck gets a dishonorable discharge. Watching the video, something tells me that wasn't the first time he's acted that way, just the first time it was recorded.

I never said I was dismissing the entire story.