Reuters' position on covering Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#141

Post by ams6110 » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:01 PM UTC

klipt wrote: post #111

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…

> 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.

Though if you read Art of the Deal or have studied how Trump operates, his initial position on anything is always more than he wants. So they "backpedaled" on green cards and legal visas and still have what they really wanted.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#142

Post by williamle8300 » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:02 PM UTC

soundwave106 wrote: post #130

williamle8300 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a perspective issue IMHO. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/0... Because of strong media polarization in the cable television news sector, coverage -- while it will show up on both sides of the fence -- will be prioritized to one topic or another entirely depending on politics. So MSNBC spent a huge amount more time exploring the Access Hollywood tapes / Russian hacking angle reg…

Trump's is/was a womanizer. I don't think that's in doubt. While that is a bad quality in a person I would distinguish this from criminal actions like deleting subpoenaed evidence.

Hillary's actions still haven't drawn the coverage that was deserved. A lot of them (see my top-level comment) would individually be deemed a national scandal had it been Trump.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#143

Post by williamle8300 » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:03 PM UTC

sprafa wrote: post #119

williamle8300 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't see the argument you're making.

A free citizen has a right to keep their tax documents private. We can't feel entitled about that.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#144

Post by legostormtroopr » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:03 PM UTC

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…

CNN said “it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents [the Hilary emails from wikileaks]. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us.” Thats fake and a lie, and they were exposed quickly about that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#145

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:07 PM UTC

williamle8300 wrote: post #137

serge2k wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Dij…

First, tell me the numbers for electoral votes. I would consider that a landslide. Second, Obama's birth certificate was forged[1]. I'm not saying he wasn't born in America, but anyone with Photoshop and how layers work knows that the document was doctored. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/15/she...

> First, tell me the numbers for electoral votes. I would consider that a landslide

Then you don't understand what a landslide, electoral or otherwise, is. Of the post-WWII elections, virtually all were bigger wins, electorally, the exception being both of George W. Bush's elections, Nixon's 1968 election, and Kennedy's 1960 election.

Actually, while WWII is often used as a breakpoint for considering modern elections, the same is true if you extend the timeframe to post-WWI.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#146

Post by breatheoften » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:07 PM UTC

williamle8300 wrote: post #122

cirath wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's always going to be some unwanted effects of any kind of legislation. I agree that those are bad side effects... but you have to look at the general thrust of the legislation: curbing unwanted immigrants to America. There's no deterministic way to discover whether someone has terrorist sentiments... so a blanket statement is used. It's sloppy but accomplishes the goal, no? Reactionary? Yes, I agree. Trump's mo…

Unwanted immigrants excluding christians which are wanted?

Better check your fly, your worldview is showing (and it's disgusting).

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#147

Post by vthallam » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:08 PM UTC

williamle8300 wrote: post #122

cirath wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's always going to be some unwanted effects of any kind of legislation. I agree that those are bad side effects... but you have to look at the general thrust of the legislation: curbing unwanted immigrants to America. There's no deterministic way to discover whether someone has terrorist sentiments... so a blanket statement is used. It's sloppy but accomplishes the goal, no? Reactionary? Yes, I agree. Trump's mo…

>Obama didn't accomplishing this much in his 8 years, as Trump has in 2 weeks

This may be an accomplishment for people who wants immigrants out, but not for America or everyone. Also, what i hated most about that particular EO is that, it also bans people with Green cards and student visa's. There are numerous students who were stopped and detained which doesn't make any sense, but again this is what you get when you want to act fast without thinking through.

I say time will tell how this step affects things in general.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#148

Post by cirath » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:08 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #37

Isn't everybody in media and business making "position statements" and being angry at you, the best way to show that you are "against the establishment"?

That is kind of a false statement, though. If he were to say that Freedom of the Press is no longer protected, the press would be very angry with you -- but I don't think it would improve your image of being against the establishment.

"The best" way to show you are against the establishment is to either a) prove the media's criticisms wrong, or b) have several actions that would stand against whatever "the establishment" is in our example.

What Trump has done is very seldom given examples of what is wrong, he has just unilaterally declared that the MSM is crooked. He has not eroded trust in an article or statement, or in most cases proving the left-leaning or progressive media wrong, he has made declarations that reach far further than his original aim. This is very in line with his character, which has been largely reactionary and often quick to pass judgments without truly "aiming" them first.

The parallels, for example, between his declarations of the media being wrong having much broader effects than intended, and his immigration bill which ultimately affected masses of people it shouldn't have, are difficult to ignore. Both were made in haste, both were aimed at a specific goal, and both had broad implications that were not originally intended.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#149

Post by peeters » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:09 PM UTC

williamle8300 wrote: post #137

serge2k wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Dij…

First, tell me the numbers for electoral votes. I would consider that a landslide. Second, Obama's birth certificate was forged[1]. I'm not saying he wasn't born in America, but anyone with Photoshop and how layers work knows that the document was doctored. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/15/she...

I'm having trouble seeing where in your link there is any evidence presented that Obama's birth certificate is forged. It's an article about some guy saying it was forged.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#150

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:09 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #78

maxxxxx wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

First, it's cojones. Cajones would be something related to boxes (from "caja" - note that Cajon Pass in California is named for a box canyon).

Second, it may or may not be that he lacks the courage. He may lack the desire to go where you suspect that he wants to go. Mostly, though, what he lacks is the freedom to do so.

Just tossing the First Amendment out the window, at the current time, would not have the support of the courts. It would be declared illegal in no time. It would then require using the power of the office to suppress free speech by force - literally having police or military shut down radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, and the internet (don't forget cell networks and ham radios). The military is unlikely to undividedly follow such a course. Now you very likely have a civil war.

So even if he wants to, he can't blatantly toss the First Amendment out the window, and not because of lack of courage. It's because the people won't put up with it (at least not yet).