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

81–90 of 263 posts

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#81

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

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…

Can you point me to some concrete examples of times CNN or WaPo has been dishonest? Not counting editorials.

> 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.

Plenty of liberals in my liberal social media bubble were yelling at the DNC and DWS when they were doing news worthy things. But why should we still be? Trump is now the one doing things we think harmful.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#82

Post by williamle8300 »

deepnotderp wrote: post #77
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.

Can you give examples of Fox distorting things? I gave many examples of issues that the MSMs didn't seriously cover.

I don't believe that there isn't "true" objective coverage but Fox News with Hannity and Carlson are really providing coverage that is sharp, and enlightening. They're actually informing the public instead of participating in the media churn.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#83

Post by mwfunk »

geezerjay wrote: post #56
beat wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, that's not all. If you don't see a difference between Trump and every president or political bloc that has achieved power before, you have not been paying attention. Like, at all. If you have been paying attention, then you should be expending your energy trying to share your insights as to why it's NOT different, rather than trying to pretend like everyone else is a strawman with the least rational reasons your imagination can come up with for believing what they believe.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#84

Post by matthewmacleod »

VLM wrote: post #57
RickS wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

HN being full of clichè dissenting know-it-alls is not new, either.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#85

Post by logicallee »

malnourish wrote: post #69
logicallee wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

We can really only read those emails due to leaks. Public officials' communications should be in the domain of the public by default unless there is a real urgent need to keep something secret.

Wow, that is a pretty extreme position. (I can't dismiss it outright as obviously the senate can debate things and come to conclusions and make policy, even if all the debates and hearings are public.)

In your opinion should politicians be allowed to meet each other and talk privately (about politics) at all? Or should there be no private meetings allowed? (Or at least no talking politics if they do meet.)

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#86

Post by akvadrako »

genieyclo wrote: post #20

"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...

You got my up-vote; thanks for reminding us. Clearly lots of people still want to think Trump's winning was a fluke.

But the LA Times polls, which had a unique methodology, predicted it. And Scott Adams gave quite reasonable explanations of why. Any news outlet that didn't give him at least close to a 50% chance wasn't doing their job.

Personally, I made a few grand betting on https://www.predictit.org, because it was pretty clear there was widespread delusion going on.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#87

Post by akeck »

malnourish wrote: post #62
owenversteeg wrote: post #10

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…

I almost exclusively read Reuters and have turned all my friends onto Reuters. If I could read the AP feeds I would read those too. I'm not looking for what to think, I'm looking for what happened, and Reuters tends to give me that, even if I miss out on some stories.

I read AP here: http://hosted.ap.org/

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#88

Post by williamle8300 »

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #81
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…

Can you point me to some concrete examples of times CNN or WaPo has been dishonest? Not counting editorials. > 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. Plenty of liberals in my liberal social media bubble were yelling at the DNC and DWS when they were doing news worthy things. But why shou…

I listed several examples in my comment. CNN for sure did not cover these issues proportionately to their gravity. These were serious issues that were skirted by them.

Had they been responsibly covered, public sentiment would be more favorable towards Trump... since he's really been rapping on this MSM corruption for a while. If anything, Trump is at least an iconoclast and whether you like his policies it would at least command respect.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#89

Post by gumby »

owenversteeg wrote: post #10

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…

> 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.

As a side point: this is the origin of the "unbiased news" stance: the rise of the third party reporting agencies (Reuters, then AP UPI, AFP), massively accelerated by the telegraph. Previously papers were connected to parties (as they often still are in many countries), but the appearance/practice of being impartial increased sales opportunities.

It since became cited as an inherent virtue; obviously not everybody agrees that it is (or if it's even epistemologically possible). Personally I think it's worth trying for.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#90

Post by mikeash »

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…

I saw a ton of liberals yelling at the DNC. Before the election, they were upset that they mistreated Bernie. After the election, they were upset that it handed the victory to Trump.

It has faded away, but that's only because more important things are going on. Trump is an immediate threat to the nation in ways the DNC could never be.

Post reply on HN