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

101–110 of 263 posts

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#101

Post by cirath »

fareesh wrote: post #61

I remember being on Twitter on most of election day and seeing evidence of all sorts of manufactured rhetoric from Reuters, and was really disturbed (proof below). There are a lot of other explanations for why this happened, but I'm not inclined to believe them given the reality of what happened on election day. It looked like Reuters' polling towards the 8th showed Trump taking the lead, but they deleted the data an…

The linked Reuters article said their polls showed a 90% chance of a Clinton win, but the polls across all boards proved to be unreliable after the fact. What they did that advanced the idea of unbiased journalism is twofold:

First, they reported on early election numbers in North Carolina which directly contradicted their poll numbers and showed Trump performing better than predicted.

Second, they outlined a clear and realistic path to Trump winning. While their own poll numbers did not support this fact, they ultimately included it. They also did not rule out a Trump win in any way.

It is always important to note that a 90% chance of winning is in no way a guarantee, and I do not believe Reuters ever truly ruled out Trump as a contender. They used the only early data available, polls--and when every poll is wrong, and psychics are still not a real thing, they did what they could with the data they had. At least, in my reading of the article you linked.

Regarding the polls you linked, those are not the Reuters/Ipsos polls of 15,000 participants. Those are much smaller polls (850 users) with far larger margins for error.

While I cannot speak to the censoring of the 11/6 poll mentioned in the second tweet, having Trump leading in popular vote nationally (eg: what polls generally check) was ultimately incorrect, regardless of what you believe. Polls need to be carefully read, interpreted, and corrected for -- which is why fivethirtyeight gave Trump a much higher chance to win than any other body.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#102

Post by mikestew »

tokenizer wrote: post #97
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…

> They might sell the same article to Russia Today, the New York Times, Fox, Al Jazeera, and the Times of India, so they can't cater to one crowd's political biases. All of that is mainstream news. This whole fake news thing is a part of the cultural war. Religious/Conservative people simply don't trust Mainstream media. To them, all of them are liberal and highly bias. Enough to omit facts for their narratives. Exam…

When you follow Reuters method of manipulation you end up with this analogous example: If a stranger said she saw you at McDonald’s eating a cheeseburger; and your neighbor said he also saw you eating a cheeseburger at McDonald’s; well…….

….. as long as the CCTV system at McDonald’s is broken then you can say “evidence fails to show that I ate at McDonald’s”.

Though I am not a trial lawyer, it seems to me that the last sentence would be absolutely correct. But when you have a narrative to support...

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#103

Post by VLM »

beat wrote: post #74
VLM wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

They seem to work really hard. Every obsolete / dead political movement in history (religion, too) was staffed primarily by honest and genuine true believers. I don't think they're lazy or stupid or unmotivated. They just hitched their carriage to a dead horse, that's all.

People involved in current day ascendant political movements and modern religions like to think they're somehow different than the dead past, but sooner or later they find out the hard way they're not. (edited to add, in my study of history I've never found an aspect of human nature quite as cross cultural and universal as this, nothing, nothing comes close, not monotheism or the golden rule or dualism or progressivism, nothing so universally human)

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#105

Post by jeremywho »

protomyth wrote: post #75

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…

U.S. president calls journalists "among the most dishonest human beings on earth” or that his chief strategist dubs the media “the opposition party."

I think their reason to respond is self-explanatory.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#106

Post by serge2k »

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.

why, because they challenge your world view?

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#107

Post by serge2k »

fareesh wrote: post #61

I remember being on Twitter on most of election day and seeing evidence of all sorts of manufactured rhetoric from Reuters, and was really disturbed (proof below). There are a lot of other explanations for why this happened, but I'm not inclined to believe them given the reality of what happened on election day. It looked like Reuters' polling towards the 8th showed Trump taking the lead, but they deleted the data an…

Oh my god what a scandal. I better never believe anything said by the media again. MAGA. etc...

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#108

Post by [deleted] »

fareesh wrote: post #61

I remember being on Twitter on most of election day and seeing evidence of all sorts of manufactured rhetoric from Reuters, and was really disturbed (proof below). There are a lot of other explanations for why this happened, but I'm not inclined to believe them given the reality of what happened on election day. It looked like Reuters' polling towards the 8th showed Trump taking the lead, but they deleted the data an…

[deleted]

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#109

Post by akvadrako »

camperman wrote: post #65
JoshGlazebrook wrote: post #3

Honestly I feel way overwhelmed by the administration related news and it has barely been over a week. It's also a constant reminder that oh yeah this really did happen and it continues to get worse.

This is entirely intentional. The God Emperor is overwhelming you with shock and awe to make opposition seem pointless, which it is of course.

I don't know why you are downvoted, because it's clearly true. It's part of his playbook, The Art of the Deal. Scott Adams continues to be an annoying but fairly accurate narrator of the Trump narrative:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156399716951/outrage-dilution

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#110

Post by cirath »

williamle8300 wrote: post #99
mikeash wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is Trump an immediate threat? I'm really curious. All of his policies are about protecting American interests, and rebuilding America's manufacturing complex. If you're referring to the Immigration EO... please read it first. It's a really well-written bill. For those curious about whether it was a religious discrimination see this pie chart of the Muslims that are excluded[1]. The goal of the EO is to mitigate t…

Trump is a more long term threat due to the long term fallout and international perception of the United States as a result of his actions.

Yes, his Immigration related EO does not affect nearly as many people as the rhetoric would indicate -- but what it does do is prevent travel to the United States for some 22,000 persons (and counting) at the very least while, by consensus, not really being likely to prevent entry to actual terrorists. It is not that the bill is truly discriminatory, just that it is likely to be ineffective in its aims while damaging international credibility of America as a land of inclusion (or, to rely on imagery from the plaque of the Statue of Liberty, a golden door, to accept your tempest-tossed refuse).

Second, while his threat of 20% tariffs on importation from Mexico may seem like it originally promotes "buying local", there are several long term ramifications. First, construction materials and machinery [1] for American factories will ultimately increase the price of American produced goods as a result of this measure. Second, this bill will, directly and immediately, grant China greater bargaining power--with the United States. Thirdly, it causes Mexico to negotiate more aggressively with its local neighbors and with overseas partners, potentially closing trade avenues altogether with America.

Ultimately, it boils down to one thing: Trump's measures appear to be reactionary, with little view for long term fallout, international reputation, and future trade relations with partners that are not directly related to his current target (eg: trade relations with Mexico deteriorating, giving China greater negotiating power).

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-does-the-u-s-import-from-me...

Post reply on HN