121–130 of 207 posts
Is it strange that I don't trust any electronic voting systems at all? I feel like without a paper trail, federal elections can be easily manipulated secretly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read the leaked emails referred to in these articles, and I don't see much that is troubling about NYT's behavior. This is just how journalism works: the reporter has to request/negotiate access to the source. The PR folks will obviously try to spin everything positively to the reporter; that's their job. Afterward, the reporter writes up a story as objectively as possible. When some part of the story happens to be…
However there are documented instances, with Politico for instance where stories were given prior approval by the Clinton campaign before publishing. There's lots of evidence that reporters colluded with the Clinton campaign. That's not 'negotiating access.' Reporters ethically are bound to not give sources the ability to approve stories. Otherwise those stories might as well be press releases. I went to journalism s…
Since you don't say which instance you are talking about, I assume you are talking about this email [1]. Which is kind of curious because it resulted in one of the most negative articles about Clinton in the primaries [2] and widely shared among Bernie and Trump supporters to attack Clinton and now this is supposed to be example of Politico being in bed with Trump? It seems more like Vogel gave the Clinton camp to comment on it.
> I went to journalism school and giving sources prior-review over a story is about as unethical as it gets.
Is it? Even our local paper gave us the chance to comment prior to publishing an article about the little company I am working at.
[1]https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808 [2]http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-le...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have very conveniently sweept it under normal PR behavior. And even used NYtimes link to debunk it all. Lovely. Nytimes pandered Iraq war hard to US masses, never believing in any political position they push. https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... Nytimes sending out first draft to John Podesta:- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emaili…
> Nytimes sending out first draft to John Podesta:- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 Stopped reading there. This is why we need journalism. People like you are unable to interpret the content of these emails. He is subscribed to the NYtimes First Draft blog [1]. Everyone with an NYTimes subscription can get the newsletter. As you can also tell by the sender nytdirect@nytimes.com [2]This isn't an actua…
Don't give me your attitude. I got one wrong and admit the mistake on that one. That does not really refute any other emails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
However there are documented instances, with Politico for instance where stories were given prior approval by the Clinton campaign before publishing. There's lots of evidence that reporters colluded with the Clinton campaign. That's not 'negotiating access.' Reporters ethically are bound to not give sources the ability to approve stories. Otherwise those stories might as well be press releases. I went to journalism s…
> However there are documented instances, with Politico for instance where stories were given prior approval by the Clinton campaign before publishing. Since you don't say which instance you are talking about, I assume you are talking about this email [1]. Which is kind of curious because it resulted in one of the most negative articles about Clinton in the primaries [2] and widely shared among Bernie and Trump suppo…
Oh that is why you are defending the shitty aspect of journalism. There is a difference between handling all of the story and asking for a comment. Asking for a comment is a normal journalism practice and handling the whole story is the shitty nepotism. It is amazing you are defending this aspect of journalism. Handing over whole story before publishing it. It helps the campaign to plan mitigation efforts, and even can do to editor to edit out the story due to Clinton campaign pushback.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
However there are documented instances, with Politico for instance where stories were given prior approval by the Clinton campaign before publishing. There's lots of evidence that reporters colluded with the Clinton campaign. That's not 'negotiating access.' Reporters ethically are bound to not give sources the ability to approve stories. Otherwise those stories might as well be press releases. I went to journalism s…
> email scandal On this topic, I find it mildly amusing that, for all the accusations of bias, it was actually the New York Times that broke the story of Clinton's private email server. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
There is a good email in wikileaks where Jake Tapper is pushing back against a slanderous story published against him. Made me respect him for that. There is also another one, where a buzzfeed reporter is introducing a collegue cordially and professionally.
I lost all trust in the NYT after Wikileaks revealed how they sabotaged Bernie Sanders and acted as a PR agency for the Clinton campaign. http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-new-york-times-propped... https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-berni... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bernie-sand...
Keeping up with current events has always been a full-contact sport, never more so than today. Whether you feel it a sport worth playing is your own lookout.
(And a US presidential election is maybe not the best introduction to this perspective, unless you value full immersion, because it's the one time when absolutely everyone is guaranteed to be lying just as hard as they can - and all in the most meritorious of causes, of course.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So did I. There's nothing wrong with a news org expressing its opinions -- on the editorial page. But a news organization earns respect by offering solid, objective reporting. To paraphrase George Orwell, journalism is writing the stories that powerful interests don't want written! The Times did the exact opposite and had a political campaign proofread stories before publication. If it weren't such a major failure of…
> The Times did the exact opposite and had a political campaign proofread stories before publication. This is false, or misleading at best, if you're referring to the Mark Leibovich profile of Clinton. He sent an off-the-record transcript the campaign asking whether it could be put on the record, and the campaign only allowed him to publish part of it. Not ideal of course, but I'm not sure how you would avoid this, u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
However there are documented instances, with Politico for instance where stories were given prior approval by the Clinton campaign before publishing. There's lots of evidence that reporters colluded with the Clinton campaign. That's not 'negotiating access.' Reporters ethically are bound to not give sources the ability to approve stories. Otherwise those stories might as well be press releases. I went to journalism s…
> email scandal On this topic, I find it mildly amusing that, for all the accusations of bias, it was actually the New York Times that broke the story of Clinton's private email server. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"PR agency" is quite the stretch. If you read the actual email ( https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10634 ) instead of the poor secondhand accounts you linked, you'll see that there's a staffer that says "I think it’s as good as we could hope for. We were able to keep him from including more on the JVF" This is a staffer saying that they talked the reporter from the NYT out of focusing on an area they didn't li…
I would argue the Clinton campaign isnt slimey because of this -- it's smart media relations. What does call credibility into question is The NY Times was "talked out of" reporting on something. An objective reporter would tell them to pound sand at a request to not report something.
As an ex-journalist, I've no doubt that on many occasions a PR thought they had convinced me of something when they absolutely hadn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nytimes sending out first draft to John Podesta:- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 Stopped reading there. This is why we need journalism. People like you are unable to interpret the content of these emails. He is subscribed to the NYtimes First Draft blog [1]. Everyone with an NYTimes subscription can get the newsletter. As you can also tell by the sender nytdirect@nytimes.com [2]This isn't an actua…
Good thing, atleast you read this one before ignoring:- https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... Don't give me your attitude. I got one wrong and admit the mistake on that one. That does not really refute any other emails.
You are right. I apologize for the dismissive tone of my comment.