Reuters' position on covering Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#231

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 1:06 AM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #225

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to disagree, but I don't see "Fox has a definite point of view" and "misinformation" as being comparable to "among the most dishonest human beings on earth". The first Obama quote says they're biased; the second Obama quote says they're lying; but the Trump quote attacks their character , not just their actions .

I see you cherry-picked the least problematic quotes: "If all you're doing is watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading some of the blogs that are churning out a lot of misinformation on a regular basis, then it's very hard for you to think that you're going to vote for somebody who you've been told is taking the country in the wrong direction." "It's a point of view that I think is ultimately dest…

I wasn't cherry-picking at all, though I should have said "a lot of misinformation on a regular basis" rather than just "misinformation. I still think that those quotes are considerably less harsh than Trump's, and that the difference is not just that Obama worded it more politely. I also think the second quote that you gave is actually less of an attack than what I quoted from the same article.

> a person's actions are their character.

Agreed, or at least their actions reveal their character. But I think it is also true that, socially, questioning someone's character is a step past questioning their actions. It doesn't make logical sense if character = actions, but I think that it's true socially.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#232

Post by chetanahuja » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 1:10 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #176

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 languag…

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

Yeah... this is what we keep telling ourselves.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#233

Post by smsm42 » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 1:24 AM UTC

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…

Reuters is certainly not nearly "unbiased". It may be better than US partisan news sources in covering US events, but their biases show elsewhere. E.g. when a terrorist attack by vehicle happened in Israel, Reuters reported it as "Palestinian dies in ramming attack"[1]. The Palestinian who died was the terrorist, but Reuters found that unimportant to mention. Another instance is where Reuters invented a quote from Israel officials out of the blue [2]. There are more examples of this, I just took first two I had at hand. Reuters relies on local freelancers and local reporting bureaus, and some of them fall way short of their proclaimed standards.

[1] http://honestreporting.com/reuters-headline-palestinian-car-... [2] http://honestreporting.com/reuters-turns-rocket-fire-into-fi...

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#234

Post by smsm42 » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 1:31 AM UTC

a_humean wrote: post #14

So Reuter's position is that the media environment in the US is rapidly becoming like illiberal democracies in Egypt, Russia and Iran, and so its time to use skills applicable when operating within typically third world authoritarian regimes. What heart warming times we live in.

Surely, Trump mouthing off couple of guys from White House press corps makes US media as tightly state-controlled as in Russia and Iran. How does it even make sense? Media environment in US is nowhere nearly similar to Russia or Iran, and is not "becoming" anything like it, regardless of what Trump tweets. If Trump nationalizes CNN or bans access to NYT website, then it would be one small step towards where Russia and Iran is. That kind of exaggeration is exactly why it is so hard to take many MSM outlets seriously.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#235

Post by smsm42 » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 1:34 AM UTC

wfo wrote: post #151

williamle8300 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're saying is anedoctal. Ultimately, Fox News were the few news organizations that knew that Trump was going to win by a landslide. Every other news organization were all singing that Hillary had a 99% chance of a victory (I'm not being hyperbolic with the 99%).

ONE news organization had 99%. More reasonable and measured ones had 60%.

Nate Silver has taken a major beating from pretty much everyone in the press when he put Clinton's chances as something like 2/3 IIRC (don't remember the exact number, but it was high, but not as high as 90%). Lots of pundits all around were berating him for being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian and inflating Trump's numbers just to draw attention to himself and so on and so forth - right up to the day Trump won. I don't remember any measured ones with 60%. Of course, I can't claim I've seen them all. Which ones were?

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#236

Post by smsm42 » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 1:43 AM UTC

breatheoften wrote: post #159

williamle8300 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How about Fox News reporting that the Canadian mosque shooter was a Moroccan Muslim who chanted allah Akbar while murdering people at the mosque? In fact he was a white Canadian citizen self described trump supporter. To my understanding they didn't retract their erroneous position for more than 24 hours after accurate details were known. Many of their listeners still believe the shooter was a Muslim immigrant. Trump…

Fox didn't invent that claim - Radio Canada reported it[1], and so did CBC. Of course, this claim was wrong, but it's not Fox's fault for repeating Canadian reporting the words of eyewitnesses. Of course, eyewitnesses are often unreliable so one has to be careful not to take it as the final truth. That applies to every "hot news" reports from any source. And certainly Fox is not responsible for anybody in the government using this claim to justify anything - they could as well use it if Fox didn't exist at all, since it was reported by the Canadian source.

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-gu...

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#237

Post by smsm42 » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 1:46 AM UTC

klipt wrote: post #167

ams6110 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, that's not how dictators act. How dictators act is they do what they want and if you resisted, they put you in jail or kill you. Dictators don't need negotiating tactics because negotiation is part of democratic process which requires consensus. Dictators don't negotiate, they dictate.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#238

Post by breatheoften » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 2:40 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #236

breatheoften wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about Fox News reporting that the Canadian mosque shooter was a Moroccan Muslim who chanted allah Akbar while murdering people at the mosque? In fact he was a white Canadian citizen self described trump supporter. To my understanding they didn't retract their erroneous position for more than 24 hours after accurate details were known. Many of their listeners still believe the shooter was a Muslim immigrant. Trump…

Fox didn't invent that claim - Radio Canada reported it[1], and so did CBC. Of course, this claim was wrong, but it's not Fox's fault for repeating Canadian reporting the words of eyewitnesses. Of course, eyewitnesses are often unreliable so one has to be careful not to take it as the final truth. That applies to every "hot news" reports from any source. And certainly Fox is not responsible for anybody in the governm…

Well -- none of the American so-called "biased liberal media" reported that false fact.

You are wrong to pretend this incident is an isolated case of biased reporting. It's part of a pattern of deliberately misleading reporting from Fox News that obscures the truth or over represents what is known.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#239

Post by astrodust » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 4:06 AM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #222

astrodust wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as that's true today, I have no idea what tomorrow brings. They've already terminated a high-level judge for obstructing the administration. What if they "detain" a reporter for "leaking classified information"? What if Manning-like detention becomes the norm for those that speak out? I'm extremely concerned that in the next few weeks the President will appear with generals flanking him at some big military e…

Are you talking about the firing of the acting Attorney General? Not a judge. It wasn't really that big a deal, it was as much a political statement on her part as it was on the administration's. It's concerning, but it is unlikely to become part of a pattern, the top officials at the Justice Department will soon be appointees of the administration rather than people that agreed to carry out necessary functions durin…

> ...it is unlikely to become part of a pattern...

And that's where we disagree. I think this is the first of many.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#240

Post by masonic » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 4:30 AM UTC

cirath wrote: post #136

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's inability to get much done can be, objectively, attributed largely to an obstructionist Congress. While not wholly to blame, it certainly both slowed his agenda, and often caused him to gut key provisions from legislation in order to get it ultimately passed. Looking at initial drafts of the Affordable Care Act early in its history versus what ultimately passed Congress is a depressing reminder of how willing…

"Looking at initial drafts of the Affordable Care Act early in its history versus what ultimately passed Congress is a depressing reminder of how willing Democratic partisans are willing to compromise their values in terms of playing ball with an enemy team..."

They made no attempt to compromise on the ACA. They didn't need to -- they passed it with zero GOP votes in the House and almost zero in the Senate. They didn't even let Reps or Senators see the bill before the vote!