31–40 of 263 posts
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.
Please reinstate the ban on political stories.
Politics is just how people manage decision making so every science story can be affected by government grants, every tech story by IP laws...
"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...
Which news outlet didn't say that?
538 said it was 66/33 or 75/25 or something similar (i forget, but it wasn't 90/10 in favor of Clinton) and they got roasted over it when they don't even control any of the polls.
"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…
Reuters is consistently my favorite news source. What I love about them is how they sell news to everyone, so they've got to make it as factual and unbiased as possible. Of course, like any news organization, they have a few biases, but I think that purely because of the position that they're in they are the least biased news source today. They might sell the same article to Russia Today, the New York Times, Fox, Al…
One item on the Do list tickled me pink: > Give up on hand-outs and worry less about official access. They were never all that valuable anyway. Our coverage of Iran has been outstanding, and we have virtually no official access. What we have are sources. I'm excited to read what they print using this policy.
(I wrote a whole thing on this subject, a couple of years back: https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2013/01/rick-reillys-lance-armstr...)
Of course we'll see how this plays out in the coverage Reuters provides going forward. And we'll even have an interesting example to contrast it with: Axios (https://www.axios.com/), the just-launched operation from some of the big wheels behind the success of Politico, which has positioned itself explicitly as an insider, access-oriented outlet.
I think what's been said is admirable. What is being unsaid? "[covering Trump] is an opportunity for us to practice the skills we’ve learned in much tougher places around the world" Hint: they already recognize that Trump is an authoritarian in all but name. Long live the King, I guess.
Please reinstate the ban on political stories.
Every story is political because politics is everywhere. Politics is just how people manage decision making so every science story can be affected by government grants, every tech story by IP laws...
There's a very good short video made by the UK Electoral Commission, that I think makes this point well: