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

161–170 of 263 posts

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#161

Post by dragonwriter »

williamle8300 wrote: post #158
dragonwriter wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You may not consider 232 (CLINTON) -– 306 (TRUMP) a landslide but I certainly do.

If you do, you rob "landslide" of any substantive meaning -- virtually every Presidential election is a "landslide" by that standard, and Trump's is the fifth weakest in 100 years.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#162

Post by breatheoften »

loblollyboy wrote: post #156
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…

That's like asking to point out some concrete examples of humor in the complete works of Mark Twain. It's there, it's everywhere. Asking someone to point out concrete examples is a waste of everyone's time. If you really want these examples (and I don't think you, or the countless redditors who I have seen make this exact same argument, really do) then I would advise you to go read the Washington post or the New York…

To the extent this is true of those media organizations, it is infinitely more true for Fox News.

Who are these people spreading ridiculous propaganda on hacker news?

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#163

Post by eridius »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #144
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…

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...

Yes, sometimes the media can say something that's not true. But this example was immediately pointed out by, guess who, the rest of the media. And it was a kind of weird thing to be wrong about too, so it seems more likely that the speaker genuinely believed they were telling the truth as opposed to being dishonest (I mean, who does it benefit to be dishonest about that? Nobody). Though that doesn't excuse the fact that they really should have double-checked that before saying it. They absolutely were wrong, and they absolutely deserved to be called out by everyone else.

But even if they were dishonest that one time, one example, no matter how widely-reported, indicates systemic dishonesty.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#164

Post by matwood »

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.

I disagree with the EO, and reading it fully I think the green card issue was more of a lack of experience on how to govern. It was clearly rushed out with little planning.

The reason I bring this up, is that Trump has plethora of issues that do not need embellishment. Hyperbole will do nothing but make Trump supporters dig further in and reaffirm their beliefs. A woman on my FB feed the other day said that as a woman, she was likely to have her right to vote taken away by the next election. That type of comment does nothing but make people think 'crazy liberal'.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#165

Post by fmihaila »

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 from states that foment anti-Western ideals. It just happens to be this group are radicalized, and violent Islamic people.

I don't understand this reasoning. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to take only two examples, are also places where a lot anti-Western activity comes from, both in ideology (via jihadist religious schools), and logistic support. If what you say is true, they should have been included in the ban.

Equally illogical is Trump's argument [1] that they couldn't take the time to consult the relevant parties from Justice, State, and Congress because that would have meant "the "bad" would rush into our country" before the EO's enactment. How does that not apply to the Muslim countries left out, like the two mentioned above, whose citizens have been the source of documented attacks on U.S. interests multiple times in the past (as opposed to the 7 countries included in the order)?

[1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/82606014382566605...

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#166

Post by wfo »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #26
BryantD wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can probably dial that in a little more: Fox News is certainly no better than CNN as far as talking heads goes, but the Trump Administration isn't feuding with them. Trump is feuding with talking heads who don't advance his agenda.

No disagreement about Fox. But is the feud really because those media outlets aren't advancing his agenda? The tone from the press started with mockery during the primaries and advanced to hostility once Trump became the forerunner. Look at the election night coverage from most of the networks: it looked like a funeral , which is rather surprising given the supposed objectivity of these organizations. IMO the feud is…

How else would you expect the press to cover that event -- someone who has explicitly stated a plan to enact vengeance upon and hatred for the very idea of a free press receiving unstoppable and unchecked power?

Nobody whose job or life depends on facts, transparency, freedom, an open civil society in the US was okay with the results of that election.

They did their best but there's only so much you can do to pretend to be objective when something truly terrible happens and we all know it. Lawyers defend horrible people to the best of their ability because it's their job, but they sure aren't happy about it.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#167

Post by klipt »

ams6110 wrote: post #141
klipt wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes I know about "talk past the deal".

But that's not how democratic leaders are meant to act, that's how dictators act.

I feel like America is selling its birthright - a democratic republic - for the illusion of security. It's been happening ever since 9/11 but now it's even worse.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#168

Post by spydum »

vthallam wrote: post #147
williamle8300 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would point out, 9/11 hijackers were all here on legal visas[0] - so using that thinking is faulty. Our visa process seems to have faults, and I think this EO is a stop-gap to try to amend the issue. I don't particularly agree with ever choosing "religion" or "race" as a litmus test (which, as I have seen seems to be the underlying motivation, right from the horses mouth), but you have to agree there is justification at closer scrutiny of some sort for visitors coming from known hot-bed countries.

I think from certain angles, you could argue Trumps response hasn't been strong enough (why wasn't SA included in that list; everybody tends to agree that is completely absurd)?

[0] http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/911-hijackers-and-student-v...

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#169

Post by klipt »

matwood wrote: post #164
klipt wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I disagree with the EO, and reading it fully I think the green card issue was more of a lack of experience on how to govern. It was clearly rushed out with little planning. The reason I bring this up, is that Trump has plethora of issues that do not need embellishment. Hyperbole will do nothing but make Trump supporters dig further in and reaffirm their beliefs. A woman on my FB feed the other day said that as a woma…

Maybe I'm overreacting but as a green card holder myself, the cavalier attitude this administration has to people's lives fucking terrifies me.

I don't want to go on vacation and then find I can't get back into America (where I have a job, a mortgage, a spouse, a social network and have lived for the past 9 years) because Trump suddenly took a dislike to my country of origin.

I'm not even from a Muslim country, but we have some Muslims, and plenty of non-white people, so given that Bannon was partly behind the EO and is openly white nationalist, who knows?

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#170

Post by dmix »

unreal37 wrote: post #50
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very sensationalist way of putting it, especially when they say "Don’t take too dark a view of the reporting environment..."

But it's true. Reuters is going to treat media reporting in the US like they treat reporting in countries heavy on censorship and hostile to the media. Let's see if that improves the reporting of facts.

Reuters simply said they have experience reporting in authoritarian countries and they don't yet know how 'sharp' Trump will be regarding the media. They're basically saying Reuters is prepared to deal with that, assuming it becomes a reality. They are not saying it's currently the case.

As far as I can tell the 'war on journalists' has almost entirely been words so far. The administration has been light with facts yes but that is a far cry from the type of media control exhibited under authoritarian regimes. So yes the OPs comment is a sensationalist interpretation.

I get the impression that people are a little too eager to characterize themselves as repressed, as if America has suddenly turned into an all-out authoritarian regime in the last week, where they are becoming a bit disconnected from reality, or at the very minimum jumping the gun. Reminds me of the classic Monty Python scene https://youtu.be/Vl4ufIrMtXg

Post reply on HN