Reuters' position on covering Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#171

Post by matwood » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:30 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…

I used to watch CNN because I found them somewhat unbiased, but this last election cycle they completely came off the rails. I'll have to find examples, but leading up to the election I was digesting a lot of news and routinely noticed where CNN would leave facts out or let a left leaning guest say something false with zero correction.

So now, I've given up on TV news since MSNBC and FOX are a joke.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#172

Post by matwood » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:30 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…

I used to watch CNN because I found them somewhat unbiased, but this last election cycle they completely came off the rails. I'll have to find examples, but leading up to the election I was digesting a lot of news and routinely noticed where CNN would leave facts out or let a left leaning guest say something false with zero correction.

So now, I've given up on TV news since MSNBC and FOX are a joke.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#173

Post by soundwave106 » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:34 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #154

soundwave106 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So long-running papers such as the Wall Street Journal, regional / local newspapers with long conservative histories (example: the Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, etc.), several long running political analysis magazines (National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator), even the vast tabloid (New York Post) and AM talk market, are Clinton / Democratic party worshipers? News to me. Heck, Fox News itself is…

I note what you picked (newspapers and news magazines, plus talk radio and Fox). But you left out MSNBC, CNN, and even the New York Times for some reason... That is: Yes, there are center-right or right-wing press organizations. Despite that, it is still true that the bulk of the "mainstream" press is no longer center - they have become biased, and sometimes even actively helping Democratic campaigns . That's not wha…

The United States traditionally has enjoyed a wide variety of opinions in its various regional daily newspapers, and some studies in the past have shown very little bias overall (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000....). Obviously there was individual bias, but not in the meta.

Maybe something has happened of late (would love to see data, aside from cable news which I think has obtained strong bias of late). But personally, I believe that if there is a problem, it is more the consolidation of media outlets into very large corporations.

This is a lack of diversity problem, not a bias problem. If "mainstream media" is defined by Big Corporations, you have to include Fox News (News Corporation) and AM talk radio (largely Clear Channel) with the liberal side of MSNBC (Comcast), Time Warner (CNN), Disney (ABC), and CBS. I can easily buy that the fact we have much fewer voices than we used to driving the narrative might lead more to monolithic opinions and groupthink.

Incidentally, I personally find the charges you are making about media actively helping campaigns a bit weird as well, given Steve Bannon's role in the Trump campaign.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#174

Post by matwood » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:34 PM UTC

serge2k wrote: post #113

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 Dij…

> massive loss in the popular vote

Can we stop talking about the popular vote? As long as people know the electoral college is what matters, the popular vote is tainted. People who live in states that are not going to swing either a) don't vote or b) vote their ideal candidate.

HN is a place where we are typically critical of any studies methodology yet we hang on to a number as skewed as the popular vote. Imagine if you were polled and told "No matter what you vote your state is going red/blue. How do you plan to vote?" That is basically the question and it means the popular vote means very little in the end.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#175

Post by MaxfordAndSons » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:36 PM UTC

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…

So like, you presume to have access to a set of countervailing facts about reality that any given NYT or WaPo article is dishonest about, whereas Fox or Breitbart gives you the straight take on these facts. But why are you so certain that you are the one with access to those true facts? What are you cross-referencing the Breitbart articles against to ensure their trustworthiness?

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#176

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:38 PM UTC

chetanahuja wrote: post #140

I'd like to see reuters/AP etc. not only take the same approach, but even use the same language to US reporting as they do in other "regimes". Here's a slate.com series that I thought was doing a great job but for some reason hasn't continued into the Trump regime. e.g. When Justice Scalia died: WASHINGTON, United States—The unexpected death of a hard-line conservative jurist on America’s constitutional court has exp…

"Deep fissures within the ruling regime"? Deep fissures, sure, between the President and the majority of the Senate, who are of the other party. It seems a bit of a stretch to call Democrats and Republicans together "the ruling regime", though.

"Fragile political system"? More fragile than it used to be, but not yet fragile. We weathered that mess with barely a sweat.

"Months of chaos"? Not even.

That is: The language doesn't fit the reality in the US, whereas it often does fit the reality of the third world.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#177

Post by mcphage » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:39 PM UTC

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…

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

Is this your first election? Consider even just the last one: Obama vs. Romney. Obama performed far worse than he did in his previous election, and it was absolutely no landslide. Maybe 2008 was a landslide, but not 2012.

Yet in 2012 Obama won more electoral votes than Trump (332 instead of 304), and won the popular vote by 3.9%, instead of losing it by 2.1%.

Trump won, yes, but the idea that it was a landslide is patently foolish, and makes the rest of your message weaker. If you're so easily misled on the details, why would I have any confidence in your bigger picture?

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#178

Post by MaxfordAndSons » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:41 PM UTC

cirath wrote: post #114

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…

>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 fa…

Thank you. Misjudging the proportional "gravity" of an issue is not equivalent to lying. But when affect has replaced logic as the value system you use in evaluating media, then I guess it is.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#179

Post by matwood » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:48 PM UTC

klipt wrote: post #169

matwood wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I don't know the future, but it is important to remember that the list of countries came from a failed nation list made by congress and the Obama administration (they also included Iran) [1]. Trump did not just pull it out of the air.

Green cards are also permanent residences so legally that is much harder to stop than not extending or granting new visas.

With that said, I'm against it and think it is bad policy on many fronts.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-adminis...

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#180

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Feb 01, 2017, 9:53 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #128

VLM wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

See, when you start saying CNN (and every other major outlet, by extension) is basically Pravda, devoted to carrying the water for the Democratic Party at the expense of the GOP, I kind of assume you're totally blinded by partisanship and incapable of rational discussion of the subject.

See, when you say that CNN has journalistic integrity, and ignore VLM's counterexample, where they in fact were carrying water for Hillary, you seem to be incapable of rational discussion on the subject. They objectively did that. Whether they did "a good job" of it or not is completely not the point.

[Edit: I saw your parallel post where your definition of "journalistic integrity" is "don't make up facts, even if you report them in a biased manner". First, I think that's way too low of a bar. Strive for objectivity, even if you can't perfectly achieve it. Second, though, what CNN did is like a sideline reporter jumping on the field and tackling someone. It's totally inappropriate, well outside of what is acceptable for journalists, even if it's not creating "false facts".]