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

111–120 of 263 posts

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#111

Post by klipt »

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…

> The goal of the EO is to mitigate the influx of refugees

Yet it blocked MIT professors with work visas (initially even green cards until they backpedaled) just because they were born in Iran/etc.

The EO is ridiculously hamfisted.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#112

Post by netcraft »

> 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 like this take, if nothing else because when you're being fed your information theres always the chance to be less thorough. Its how propaganda is made.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#113

Post by serge2k »

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

Immediately predict lame rhetoric about how bad the media is.

> When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News).

Oh right, the bastion of correct reporting, fucking Fox News. Questioning Obama's birth certificate. Warning about his terrorist fist jabs. Rightly admonishing him for asking for Dijon Mustard.

> As a litmus test... the fact that almost every liberal in America is yelling at Trump more than they're yelling at the DNC

The current president vs something that happened 8 months ago.

> doubled-down on Hillary the loss wasn't just technical––it was a landslide[1]

It wasn't a fucking landslide. 13th closest election in history by electoral college, massive loss in the popular vote. This is why Trump supporters need a fucking reality check and should maybe try some of that mainstream media. You are hooked on his propaganda and lies.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#114

Post by cirath »

williamle8300 wrote: post #88
MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

>CNN for sure did not cover these issues proportionately to their gravity.

This is a very reasonable statement, but ultimately does not encapsulate the rhetoric that has been levied against the media by Trump specifically, nor his more ardent supporters.

Not covering proportional to gravity is not:

Anything similar to lies, fabrications, false news, misconstruing the news, or presenting the topic with a completely false narrative.

While it does certainly affect the narrative, and while CNN gives far more weight to articles favoring the left, this does not hurt Trump in any way as far as his getting elected was concerned. At the very least, the song played by the left leaning MSM (and that is a VERY IMPORTANT distinction, as Fox News represents the right leaning MSM; their viewer numbers have them as a larger body than CNN--how would they not be the true MSM?) lulled many Clinton supporters into a false sense of security. The post-election meltdowns by people who claimed they did not vote directly as a result of this false security, while anecdotal, points directly at that narrative.

And even if you allow that CNN reports on left leaning issues in a positive light while decrying conservative viewpoints, and Fox reports on right leaning issues positively while pointing out the issues in progressive topics, one cannot use them as direct opposition to each other, as neither tends to focus both on the positives and negatives in an issue in a way that could be considered equal. Equal airtime doctrines have also caused a negative skew, but that is another topic altogether.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#115

Post by sprafa »

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…

What worries me about the EO is how incompetent it was, and his running excuse that terrorists would just jump into planes to fly to the US if they heard about it first! That's nuts and it's the beggining of an excuse for him to do this over and over again, eroding the ability of Congress to vet his actions. "There's no time" does anyone actually believe that?

I am not blind to Trump's virtues. Economically he has a lot of good ideas. I agree that PC was going too far! But he's a lying son of a gun who's trying to screw us all.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#116

Post by sprafa »

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.

There's been studies showing people who watch Fox are more uninformed

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#117

Post by sprafa »

williamle8300 wrote: post #82
deepnotderp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's been studies showing people who watch Fox are uninformed. I actually think they're half decent this election cycle, completely unlike the Pravda they were for Iraq/GWB, but they publish more misconceptions and lies than the others (I do not believe for a second WaPo or CNN are unbiased)

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#118

Post by dragonwriter »

cirath wrote: post #110
williamle8300 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 entr…

> Yes, his Immigration related EO does not affect nearly as many people as the rhetoric would indicate

It potentially affects, well, everyone, really: while much focus has been on the effect of the refugee ban and the 90-day shutdown from named countries, the order directs certain executive officers to determine information that foreign countries (all countries, not just the specific ones addressed by the 90 say ban) must share with the US regarding potential immigrants and orders that those officers provide recommendations of countries that should be added to an immigration ban list because they do not share the required information.

So it impacts all potential immigrants to the United States, and all third parties (including US citizens about whom a foreign government has information) about whom (because of direct or indirect relationship ship to a potential immigrant) the US might demand information from a foreign government as a condition of allowing immigration from that country.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#119

Post by sprafa »

williamle8300 wrote: post #88
MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

The problem is he's a hypocrite. How can you accuse the media of lying and lie all he time yourself? His IRS lie being the worst. He kept saying he couldn't do it, but that's just a straight lie.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#120

Post by sprafa »

coldtea wrote: post #39
r00fus wrote: post #2

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.

"We always put out the official western establishment party line for those places, and we'll do the same for Trump's administration".

Do you actually think saying Iran is a repressive state is false? Do you actually think Bannon's statements are normal?

It's at least Nixon level bullshit at the moment; I expect it to get worst.

Post reply on HN