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

201–210 of 263 posts

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#201

Post by bashinator »

spydum wrote: post #168
vthallam wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 justificati…

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, who are not subject to the travel ban.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#202

Post by mikeash »

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…

I seem to recall Obama passing a rather major health care reform. Trump hasn't done anything nearly that big yet.

What you describe as a "lean and agile approach to legislation" appears to be not bothering with legislation at all. Has there been any legislation passed during the Trump administration yet? I certainly haven't heard of anything big.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#203

Post by ugh22 »

williamle8300 wrote: post #155
peeters wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USoWpLll4Cg http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obama... http://glitch.news/2016-12-29-real-forensic-investigation-de... http://thedailybanter.com/2016/12/arpaio-proof-fake-birth-ce...

Your evidence is Arpaio? lol.

I guess the newspaper announcement was faked 60 years ago too?

Seriously dude, drop it. It's pathetic and sad. Hundreds of experts have looked at it, of course there is 1 racist goon who will say otherwise.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#204

Post by pmoriarty »

tokenizer wrote: post #97
owenversteeg wrote: post #10

Reuters is consistently my favorite news source. 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. Of course, like any news organization, they have a few biases, but I think that purely because of the position that they're in they are the least biased news source today. They might sell the same article to Russia Today, the New York Times, Fox, Al…

> They might sell the same article to Russia Today, the New York Times, Fox, Al Jazeera, and the Times of India, so they can't cater to one crowd's political biases. All of that is mainstream news. This whole fake news thing is a part of the cultural war. Religious/Conservative people simply don't trust Mainstream media. To them, all of them are liberal and highly bias. Enough to omit facts for their narratives. Exam…

"Religious/Conservative people simply don't trust Mainstream media. To them, all of them are liberal and highly bias."

People on the left don't trust the mainstream media either. To them, the mainstream media is way too far to the right and highly biased.

For many examples, listen to CounterSpin, a show created by media watchdog group FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting).[1]

Also, though it's not specifically media-focused, Democracy Now! often reports many instances of right-wing bias in the mainstream media.[2]

[1] - http://fair.org/counterspin/

[2] - https://www.democracynow.org/

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#205

Post by malnourish »

akeck wrote: post #87
malnourish wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost exclusively read Reuters and have turned all my friends onto Reuters. If I could read the AP feeds I would read those too. I'm not looking for what to think, I'm looking for what happened, and Reuters tends to give me that, even if I miss out on some stories.

I read AP here: http://hosted.ap.org/

Excellent! Thank you very much

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#206

Post by nikdaheratik »

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.…

My pet peeve is when people assume that being smart is the most important thing in politics (or any other endeavor). Clever people may make fewer mistakes, but when they do make them they are much more difficult to fix. Just as true for software as it is for running a country.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#207

Post by BryantD »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #189
BryantD wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their words, not mine: "We’re sending surrogates to places where we think it makes sense to promote our agenda."

Um, whose words? From what you said, I can't make out who you're talking about.

That's a quote from a White House official who was unwilling to put his name on the record, sorry.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#208

Post by protomyth »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #192
protomyth wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

President Obama as his comments on Fox News (he went farther and included comments on their viewers). For a bit of history, President Jackson was fairly salty with his views of newspapers. Unprecedented has pretty much been they insulted my guys instead of their guys.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#209

Post by pmoriarty »

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…

It really cracks me up whenever I hear the extreme right lambast the mainstream media, who (at least in the US) is mostly right wing anyway.

Trump should be kissing the feet of the mainstream media, who were the single biggest force responsible for his election. Without "Trump" being the most often repeated word on every mainstream reporter's lips ever since he started running for office, he wouldn't have stood a chance.

Trump got virtually non-stop, world-wide, free advertising -- the kind that even his money couldn't buy. His election is proof positive that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Trump should be grovelling before the mainstream media. But to pander to his base, who long ago swallowed the "liberal mainstream media" conspiracy theory, and to deflect criticism, he has to pretend that he's a victim of the mainstream media, when he's really their beneficiary.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#210

Post by nikdaheratik »

spydum wrote: post #168
vthallam wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 justificati…

I'm reminded of the old proverb: "Do not remove a fly from your friend's head with a hatchet". Banning thousands of people who haven't done anything and may actually help our cause, just to prevent a few dozen people who may be able to find other means to get in the country if they had to anyways, is not a smart policy.

There hasn't been anything like another 9/11 attack since and we've had 16 years, so maybe two Presidents and all of our allied governments with the same policy know more about what to do to keep the country safe than a two week old presidency.

Post reply on HN