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

71–80 of 263 posts

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#71

Post by williamle8300 »

I'm a Trump supporter so take this with a grain of salt.

When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News). Anyone who follows Trump know these are the folks he's referring to. If he didn't like ALL of the media, he wouldn't even have a press corps. Reuters isn't really engaging with what Trump's saying.

Are Trump's claims substantiated? I would say, Yes.

During the last election cycle, anybody who knows anything about the DNC leaks, Podesta emails, CNN feeding Hillary questions during townhall meetings against Sanders, Hillary's gliding past the FBI investigations, "bleaching" her email servers (which were under subpoena), Bill Clinton's unprofessional meeting with Loretta Lynch... knows that there's some serious corruption happening at the top of these major news companies.

As a litmus test... the fact that almost every liberal in America is yelling at Trump more than they're yelling at the DNC (and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) shows the state of mainstream media. The DNC sabotaged Bernie Sanders nomination, and he was the only candidate that would have a chance of beating Trump (a very high chance since he had young vote). When the DNC sabotaged Sanders' nomination, and doubled-down on Hillary the loss wasn't just technical––it was a landslide[1]

Mainstream media is really broken in America. There really needs to be a breakup of corporation-owned news companies. It really is a swamp in Trump's idiom.

[1] http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#72

Post by mwfunk »

ufmace wrote: post #60
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.

If you view people who don't agree with you politically as strawmen who "worship" your least favorite politicians, then you've already failed at understanding the world. Everyone disagrees on stuff, but if you want to understand people and the world, the only way to do that is to see things from other peoples' perspective. They have plenty of reasons for voting the way they do that have nothing to do with being brainwashed or worshipping false idols or whatever. You may or may not agree with those reasons, and those reasons may be based on true or false premises, but if you don't understand your opposition you will never defeat them, if that's your goal. You might even find that better government is a higher goal than beating whatever group you've lumped into a single hate bucket. What you said is no different from how you think "those people" view you.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#73

Post by maxxxxx »

beat wrote: post #31
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.

Look at it this way... they just called Steve Bannon a rank, timid amateur when it comes to intimidating the press. They said, very loudly, we are not afraid of you . Good for them.

I would not underestimate Bannon. He is a very smart guy.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#74

Post by beat »

VLM wrote: post #53
beat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

If that's the case, then they're not doing a very good job of it, huh?

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#75

Post by protomyth »

I'm not sure what they are going for with this statement. I really wonder who is the audience. I just don't know what good they were hoping to achieve. I'm not being cynical, I just don't understand.

Reaction wise this is basically signaling to most conservatives that Reuters hasn't been doing their job. Its a positive reinforcement that they didn't properly investigate or cover the scandals. I imagine #3 (Give up on hand-outs and worry less about official access) is going to generate most of the commentaries about what has been reported with the prior administration.

"Get out into the country..." was supposed to be your job. Maybe if they had done it properly a lot of surprising things wouldn't have been surprises.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#76

Post by Endama »

williamle8300 wrote: post #71

I'm a Trump supporter so take this with a grain of salt. When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News). Anyone who follows Trump know these are the folks he's referring to. If he didn't like ALL of the media, he wouldn't even have a press corps. Reuters isn't really engaging with what Trump's saying. Are Trump's claims substantiated? I would say, Yes…

While I may not agree with your position, I appreciate your perspective. Thank you for sharing.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#77

Post by deepnotderp »

williamle8300 wrote: post #71

I'm a Trump supporter so take this with a grain of salt. When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News). Anyone who follows Trump know these are the folks he's referring to. If he didn't like ALL of the media, he wouldn't even have a press corps. Reuters isn't really engaging with what Trump's saying. Are Trump's claims substantiated? I would say, Yes…

Bernie supporter here, so obvious bias, but the way they (CNN, Fox, etc.) talked down to Sanders in the primaries was disgusting, so I have to agree there. However, the trump administration wasn't attacking Fox news which I think we can all agree from an objective standpoint is several times worse than CNN in their distortion of the truth.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#78

Post by beat »

maxxxxx wrote: post #73
beat wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at it this way... they just called Steve Bannon a rank, timid amateur when it comes to intimidating the press. They said, very loudly, we are not afraid of you . Good for them.

I would not underestimate Bannon. He is a very smart guy.

Oh, I don't doubt he's very smart. But there are both laws and traditions in place to prevent the kind of subservient lapdog press he wants to have. And he lacks the cajones to just toss the First Amendment out the window on a broad scale (yet).

Reuters' point was that even without the First Amendment and other protections afforded journalists in America, they're capable of publishing important, relevant news anyway. So that's not just a statement of intent. It's deliberately poking at Bannon's bluster. We are not afraid of you. He's trying to intimidate the press, and Reuters, at least, is having none of that.

So Bannon is smart. So what? That won't keep Reuters from doing their jobs.

edit: I should probably add here that I think assuming one's political opponents are stupid is a pet peeve of mine. Of course Bannon is very smart, or he wouldn't be where he is today.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#79

Post by thegayngler »

jerf wrote: post #41
Bartweiss wrote: post #4

I've seen several people suggest that covering Trump is an unprecedented challenge which news orgs have no understanding of how to handle. This is a good reminder that this isn't true; even a presidency which is exceptional by American standards is well within the familiar scope of international news organizations.

I realize that it may be a lot more fun and topical to blame Trump, but the HN gestalt has been discussing the increasingly hollowed-out nature of American news reporting for years now. Public trust of the press has been dropping for decades. If this manifests as "hey, we've all got to get back to real reporting", then it will be positive. (Not a mere rhetorical sop; that is genuinely my preferred, best-case outcome.…

It's not the same click bait driven hype machine. The press used to be able to cover "real news". However, with their revenues declining many in the media have no choice but to use click bait driven headlines and the like. However, if users show an interest in "real news", the media will cater to that.

I'd also argue that most of the people complaining about the media rarely if ever read the news. They sit around making claims like the media lied so that's why I don't read any of it. It's like yes people make mistakes. The news media in particular will generally go out of its way to correct mistakes in coverage or correct a mischaracterization of a story or fix errors.

Remember if everyone was just discarded every time they made a mistake at work, there would be no one working. The media and people will make mistakes but you don't discard them simply because they made mistakes especially when they will correct the mistake once they are made aware of said mistake. I would be skeptical of those who don't believe in correcting their own mistakes when they happen and those who think they do no wrong.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#80

Post by beat »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #67
beat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree (especially about CNN's journalistic integrity). But I appreciate you taking the time to respond, as opposed to those users who simply abuse the downvote button.

Partisan bias and journalistic integrity are separate issues. Whether or not CNN has a partisan bias (I think their "liberal bias" is a fantasy, but that's me), they have journalistic integrity. They don't knowingly publish outright falsehoods.

A news organization can be highly partisan and still have excellent integrity.

Post reply on HN