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

191–200 of 263 posts

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#191

Post by maxxxxx »

beat wrote: post #133
astrodust wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the smart that people should be concerned about. It's if he's going to go as far as some governments do in suppressing journalists: Harassment, imprisonment, or execution. Covering the current administration is so far not a life-threatening exercise. That's what people mean by "amateur". There are other countries where reporting carries real, immediate risks to one's safety. Consider the luxury of being a US…

Exactly. Bannon isn't tossing Wolf Blitzer in jail for saying something bad about the administration. Lesser journalists aren't just disappeared off the streets and never seen again. Amateur, by standards of suppressing the media.

They don't have to suppress the media if they just undermine their credibility. I think this is the strategy and they are successful with it. If people view the New York Times and breitbart.com as equally biased then you have a problem.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#192

Post by AnimalMuppet »

protomyth wrote: post #124
jeremywho wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Prior administrations have had some amazingly unkind things to say about the press. I don't think those comments are any reason to respond.

From my memory, what Trump said is unprecedented. If you have contrary data, please share it.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#193

Post by wootness »

testUser69 wrote: post #184
bredren wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way to look at it is their reporters on US press have been caught flat-footed on daily news gathering. They don't have the same skills as their non-US counterparts and are rattled. This is a call to arms. We are facing darkness now, and I believe this will have a lasting impact in what reporters are capable of and willing to do to offer free press.

The press was asking for this though, at least the mainstream press like CNN and MSNBC. Not only did they push the Hillary Clinton agenda, but it was obvious to anyone with a brain that the liberal news networks didn't mind that they were helping Trump win the republican nominee, because they thought he would easily loose, and be a great figure head to point at next time someone tries to claim not all white men are r…

Does something?

Have you not seen the past 11 days? Complete corruption and insane plans.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#194

Post by wootness »

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...

Forged? How do you feel about bigfoot?

Get your bigotry off HN. You are not welcome here. Grow up.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#195

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#196

Post by vorotato »

mlmlmasd wrote: post #160
gumby wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. As a side point: this is the origin of the "unbiased news" stance: the rise of the third party reporting agencies (Reuters, then AP UPI, AFP), massively accelerated by the telegraph. Previously papers were connected to parties (as they often still are in many countries), but the appearance/practi…

> but the appearance/practice of being impartial increased sales opportunities. Is this based on any real data? Have there been any credible studies that show unbiased reporting = higher sales?

You can sell an article to both fox and cnn... duh

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#197

Post by mikeash »

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…

I read the EO first. It pretty clearly excludes people who should have the right to be here, including people on work and student visas, and permanent American residents. The White House has since walked that back a little bit, no doubt due to the massive backlash, but the order itself is clear enough, and the order continues to block people who should be allowed to come here.

I don't know what "well-written" would mean here, but it's not a good order by any means.

The threat posed by Trump goes far beyond this, though. Right now, my hope is simply that we're all still alive to vote again in 2020. I'm quite serious about that. Trump has shown himself over and over to be highly insecure, obsessed with revenge, and unable to let any slight slide without a response. Put such a person in charge of the world's most powerful military and there's a good chance of a catastrophe.

Ignoring the threat of nuclear annihilation, there's also the threat to the foundations of our democracy. He constantly attacked our electoral system and refused to commit to accepting the outcome of the election. We didn't find out how he would have handled losing in 2016, but how would he handle losing in 2020, or hitting the 22nd Amendment in 2024? I wouldn't be at all surprised if he refuses to leave and precipitates a crisis.

There's plenty more, for example his offhand desire to strip American citizenship as punishment for flag burning, but those are the two main ones that concern me.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#198

Post by maxerickson »

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…

His stated goal is protecting American interests.

It's not at all clear that his policies do anything to accomplish that goal. His executive order on immigration was quite likely counterproductive to American interests. Sure, it disrupted travel for a large number of people that had already been through a thorough vetting process (the claims that doing this made us safer are weak, the existing vetting process was effective, people who went through it had killed 0 people in the US), but it also made the US look foolish and capricious.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#199

Post by mikeash »

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…

It was not lack of experience, it was deliberate, and only rolled back due to protests. After the order was put out, DHS decided that it didn't apply to green card holders. The administration then clarified that it did, and that's when SHTF as it were:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-b...

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#200

Post by sjellis »

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…

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

Err, no.

He has put out some Executive Orders, and done some hiring and firing. Even that has been enough to massively damage his Administration, such is the level of decision-making that we've seen so far.

Post reply on HN