21–30 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is a political blog post from Jupyter a political story? Is a discussion of whether RustConf should be held in the US a political story? Are the Snowden leaks political stories? Is YC funding ACLU a political story?
To quote the HN Guidelines: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
Please reinstate the ban on political stories.
But haven't you heard? Trump did something people don't like so he's a fascist now. Grass roots organisations that are in touch with the common man like Apple, Google, the New York Times and the Washington post are really opposed to this. If we keep this up it's bound to make those dumb working class white people vote correctly next time.
So Reuter's position is that the media environment in the US is rapidly becoming like illiberal democracies in Egypt, Russia and Iran, and so its time to use skills applicable when operating within typically third world authoritarian regimes. What heart warming times we live in.
This is a call to arms. We are facing darkness now, and I believe this will have a lasting impact in what reporters are capable of and willing to do to offer free press.
"Clinton has 90 percent chance of winning: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation" - Nov 8 - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKBN1...
No mention that Thomson Reuters, owner of the Reuters news service, donated between $1m-$5m to Clinton. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati...
There's a slight inaccuracy here; by simply saying "donated to Clinton" you imply that the donation was to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The donation was, however, to the Clinton Foundation. Given that the donations to the Clinton Foundation also came from conservative media outlets such as Newsmax and Fox, I'm confident that donating to the Clinton Foundation does not prove bias towards Hillary Clinton.
How else do you explain this:
http://observer.com/2017/01/the-clinton-foundation-shuts-dow...
As soon as Clinton was out of the race, all those donations suddenly stopped coming in. It's pretty obvious that the whole thing was pretty much just legal bribery und the disguise of altruism.
Since the Global Initiative has already shut down, it's probably only a matter of time until the Foundation shuts down, too.
I think these are excellent guidelines. If Reuters adheres to them, they'll continue to rise above the other mainstream media outlets. I suspect they'll be unlikely to come under fire from the current Administration, whose feud with the media seems to be concentrated on "info-tainment" organizations like CNN that for years now have eschewed factual reporting for titillation and talking heads.
We can probably dial that in a little more: Fox News is certainly no better than CNN as far as talking heads goes, but the Trump Administration isn't feuding with them. Trump is feuding with talking heads who don't advance his agenda.
But is the feud really because those media outlets aren't advancing his agenda? The tone from the press started with mockery during the primaries and advanced to hostility once Trump became the forerunner. Look at the election night coverage from most of the networks: it looked like a funeral, which is rather surprising given the supposed objectivity of these organizations.
IMO the feud is about a lack of objectivity rather than a lack of full-throated support. Nobody should want a complicit, docile press: that's what we largely had for the last 8 years.
So Reuter's position is that the media environment in the US is rapidly becoming like illiberal democracies in Egypt, Russia and Iran, and so its time to use skills applicable when operating within typically third world authoritarian regimes. What heart warming times we live in.
"Clinton has 90 percent chance of winning: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation" - Nov 8 - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKBN1...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a slight inaccuracy here; by simply saying "donated to Clinton" you imply that the donation was to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The donation was, however, to the Clinton Foundation. Given that the donations to the Clinton Foundation also came from conservative media outlets such as Newsmax and Fox, I'm confident that donating to the Clinton Foundation does not prove bias towards Hillary Clinton.
The Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative are just two fronts the Clintons used over the years to receive bribes. How else do you explain this: http://observer.com/2017/01/the-clinton-foundation-shuts-dow... As soon as Clinton was out of the race, all those donations suddenly stopped coming in. It's pretty obvious that the whole thing was pretty much just legal bribery und the disguise of altruism. Sin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is a political blog post from Jupyter a political story? Is a discussion of whether RustConf should be held in the US a political story? Are the Snowden leaks political stories? Is YC funding ACLU a political story?
To quote the HN Guidelines: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
There's a case to be made that much of today's politics are interesting new phenomenons.