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

211–220 of 263 posts

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#211

Post by yread »

williamle8300 wrote: post #82
deepnotderp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bernie supporter here, so obvious bias, but the way they (CNN, Fox, etc.) talked down to Sanders in the primaries was disgusting, so I have to agree there. However, the trump administration wasn't attacking Fox news which I think we can all agree from an objective standpoint is several times worse than CNN in their distortion of the truth.

Can you give examples of Fox distorting things? I gave many examples of issues that the MSMs didn't seriously cover. I don't believe that there isn't "true" objective coverage but Fox News with Hannity and Carlson are really providing coverage that is sharp, and enlightening. They're actually informing the public instead of participating in the media churn.

There is this hilarious O'Reilly report about Amsterdam (Yurop, of course, so not that relevant but it still shows complete disconnect from reality)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLJ56BfPoSg

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#212

Post by nikdaheratik »

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…

You are not overreacting. It's unnerving that a two-week old administration isn't willing to listen to anyone in their own government, or in our allies, and just thinks they know best. If they had people with experience, they'd understand just how much this policy messes with people's lives, and for no real benefit.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#213

Post by pmoriarty »

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.…

The mainstream media are already lap dogs. They've been taking orders from the rich and powerful for decades, and are a complete and utter joke.

Trump calling them to heel is just a method of pulling the already right-wing mainstream media further to the right. The far right will never settle for anything less than FOX, and for some of them even FOX is "too liberal".

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#214

Post by nikdaheratik »

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.

And if anyone running things in the Trump administration actually knew the law, or history, they'd understand that treating people equally no matter what country they came from is not negotiable. You can't run a government like a business deal.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#215

Post by AnimalMuppet »

protomyth wrote: post #208
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you, I just don't remember. What, specifically, did Obama say about Fox News? (I don't care about Jackson; I hope that civility has improved since then, though recent evidence casts doubt on that position.)

Remember, the statement to beat is when Trump called journalists "among the most dishonest human beings on earth”.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#216

Post by AnimalMuppet »

BryantD wrote: post #207
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ah, I see. They, the White House, are not going to send "surrogates" (talking heads) to talk to the press where they don't feel like they're going to be fairly heard (for some definition of "fairly"). That's understandable, in a way, but it's also a very bad move. First, having to explain yourself to hostile questioners is part of what the White House is supposed to have to do, so that the public gets a more realistic view of whether their policies are sane than they would get from the White House alone. But second, if they think they're being unfairly treated by a biased media, not talking to that segment of the media is not going to make the divide any less...

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#217

Post by maxerickson »

mikeash wrote: post #202
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…

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.

The waiver for Secretary Mattis, a couple of bills that appear to be quite minor (I only skimmed them for a second):

https://www.congress.gov/public-laws/115th-congress

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#218

Post by mikeash »

maxerickson wrote: post #217
mikeash wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The waiver for Secretary Mattis, a couple of bills that appear to be quite minor (I only skimmed them for a second): https://www.congress.gov/public-laws/115th-congress

Thanks. I didn't realize it was so easy to look up. Obvious in retrospect.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#219

Post by serge2k »

matwood wrote: post #174
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…

> 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…

No, for two reasons.

1. It's a direct response to the idea that Trump won a landslide. The election was actually close by electoral college standards, and losing the popular vote shows he was far from the mandate a landslide suggests.

2. It's evidence that the electoral college system is flawed, and starting to become a problem. 2000 and 2016 are the only 2 elections since before 1900 where the popular vote didn't end up matching the election. This is a problem, and should be talked about.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#220

Post by protomyth »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #215
protomyth wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you, I just don't remember. What, specifically , did Obama say about Fox News? (I don't care about Jackson; I hope that civility has improved since then, though recent evidence casts doubt on that position.) Remember, the statement to beat is when Trump called journalists "among the most dishonest human beings on earth”.

President Obama was a bit more elegant but:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-in-command-b...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/18/media/president-obama-fox-ne...

Post reply on HN