They reported on the claims that were made. Once again, newspapers are not oracles. Facts change from day to day and stories develop over time.
There's a reason that the Times puts out a new edition every day, instead of releasing just a singe one 2000 years ago that we all worship as indisputable truth.
"Fake news" is reporting that Barack Obama, Black Lives Matter, and Anonymous are planning riots in 37 city centers at 7 pm on July 15 2016, as Breitbart, the Daily Caller, and other far-right news sources reported two days before. The story was entirely made up, and most of the text was copied from a chain email from the 00s.
hence why you do not report on something as being a fact before it is proven and before you investigate the claim. Its like me reporting the earth is flat because someone said it.
No other facts were available. The claim was itself the news, with updates pending a police investigation. This isn't complicated. Investigating crimes is the police's job, not every single newspaper in the world's.
Should all of the world's newspapers have held off on reporting the MAGA bombs until Cesar Sayoc's conviction?
Should we all have pretended that nothing was wrong about the world trade center until the 9/11 commission filed their final report?
not my point. but don't say it is a terrorist attack before proven. don't say it is a racist attack by two white men wearing a maga hat before its proven. can you imagine implications of people lynching to people with red caps in the street thinking its them?
And at what point did the evil lying media say those things? They said that "Jussie Smollett claims he was attacked by a group of racists late at night. He was relased from the hospital with minor injuries. Police are investigating it as a hate crime". Those are facts.
Here are some examples, quote the statements that were verifiably false at the time.
