Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reuters' position on covering Trump

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 263 posts

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#51

Post by BryantD »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #26
BryantD wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No disagreement about Fox. 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…

Their words, not mine: "We’re sending surrogates to places where we think it makes sense to promote our agenda."

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#52

Post by jcoffland »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #27
a_humean wrote: post #14

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.

That's a very sensationalist way of putting it, especially when they say "Don’t take too dark a view of the reporting environment..."

I don't find the parent comment sensationalist. The letter compares the current situation in the US to what Reuters has dealt with in Iran and other oppressive countries. It's hardly sensational to point that out explicitly.

Also, "very sensationalist" is not only redundant but itself sensationalist.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#53

Post by VLM »

beat wrote: post #44
MrZongle2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No disagreement about Fox. 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…

I disagree. It's not about whether CNN and other outlets are "objective". It's about scapegoating an enemy. Beating on the "liberal media" has been a cartoon villain from the GOP ever since the rise of FOX News and right-wing talk radio two decades ago, but this is a new level. They can discourage even believing in facts, and focus supporters on "alt" media that isn't impeded by inconveniences like having to report t…

"CNN may be kinda dumb, but at least they have a bedrock of journalistic integrity."

You seem to have missed the email leaks. They cooperate exclusively behind the scenes with the Democratic party to ensure the defeat of Republicans. They have the journalistic integrity of cold war era "Pravda".

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#54

Post by logicallee »

a_humean wrote: post #14

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.

America is a country where you can read Hillary's emails (via wikileaks, that you won't get in trouble for visiting) but she can't read yours. (Nor can Trump.)

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#55

Post by BryantD »

gravypod wrote: post #45
BryantD wrote: post #12

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.

It think it's pretty obvious that Hillary's foundation is basically her back pocket. Can you point to any charity work that was done by it? Any charity work of the magnitude of the millions it's received? With far less money many more organization have done much more charitable work. One such example is the NAACP. They've received ~16mill which is a stark contrast between the Clinton Foundation who has received in th…

Um, sure. The 2015 annual report is here: http://2015.clintonfoundation.org/

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#56

Post by geezerjay »

beat wrote: post #46
sglane wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quote the HN Guidelines: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.

This one is all about "interesting new phenomenon". Reuters didn't feel a need to talk up their journalism-under-duress skills and compare the Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan administration's hostility to Iran and Zimbabwe.

> Reuters didn't feel a need to talk up their journalism-under-duress skills

The anti-Trump crowd, including major news networks who specifically set their editorial line to bash Trump whenever they can, are throwing a hissy fit. That's all.

Reuter's statement says nothing more than "Hey, we do journalism that doesn't just echo press releases and we handle much harsher environments than this. We good."

The fact that the radical anti-Trump crowd in general and some elements of the US press are throwing this national tantrum, and has been doing so even before Trump even took office is a telltale sign of how this problem is unravelling.

And enough with the Trump posts on HackerNews. Post tech stuff, not political rants and ravings.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#57

Post by VLM »

RickS wrote: post #30
sglane wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quote the HN Guidelines: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.

>some interesting new phenomenon There's a case to be made that much of today's politics are interesting new phenomenons.

HN being an unobjective far left echo chamber is not new, making the stories kind of tiresome propaganda.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#58

Post by weberc2 »

If the media generally practiced the principles outlined in this post, the criticisms levied against the industry wouldn't be credible. Not that Trump has any moral authority to complain about anyone's integrity, but many have been complaining about the increasing partisanship among the U.S. media for a long time, and their complaints are largely valid.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#59

Post by justinlaster »

gravypod wrote: post #45
BryantD wrote: post #12

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.

It think it's pretty obvious that Hillary's foundation is basically her back pocket. Can you point to any charity work that was done by it? Any charity work of the magnitude of the millions it's received? With far less money many more organization have done much more charitable work. One such example is the NAACP. They've received ~16mill which is a stark contrast between the Clinton Foundation who has received in th…

You're concern trolling. The information is readily out there.

Your question puts forth a sense of "genuine" curiosity, but then later you compare the work the of the Clinton Foundation to that NAACP and Red Cross, and make judgements around that. So you presume to not know any charity work that's been done by the foundation, yet you're able to compare it to other charities. Why be so disingenuous?

The Clinton Foundation website has a litany of literature on its efforts around the world. Charity Navigator gives the Clinton Foundation on overall 94.74/100 score [0].

In short, kindly fuck off out of here with what is either out right lies or willful ignorance.

[0]: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#60

Post by ufmace »

a_humean wrote: post #14

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.

I should note that if you lean to the Right and/or don't worship the Clintons and the Democratic party, then most of the US media has seemed like a third-world Party Line news for a long time.
Post reply on HN