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

241–250 of 263 posts

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#241

Post by masonic »

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…

No, at least three were in the USA illegally on 9/11.[0] It's another example of Factcheck.org's unreliability.

[0] http://www.fairus.org/issue/identity-and-immigration-status-...

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#242

Post by smsm42 »

breatheoften wrote: post #238
smsm42 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the media is biased to liberal side, it would be very reluctant to report on crime committed by somebody yelling "Allahu Akbar", at least this particular detail. In this particular case it worked to their favor, since the report turned out to be false. That doesn't mean the bias is good, it just means in one case this bias accidentally filtered out false information. There are plenty of cases where the same filter filtered out true information and passed on false information.

BTW, Reuters reported the same too[1]. So did The Times in UK[2]. Not exactly bastions of Republicans.

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-mosque-shooting-sce... [2] http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/suspects-shouted-all...

> You are wrong to pretend this incident is an isolated case of biased reporting.

I'm not pretending anything of the sort. On the contrary, I am clearly stating this is not an evidence of Fox being biased, but of Fox relaying information from a reliable source, which they had no reason to suspect was wrong, but still turned out to be wrong. It happens.

If Fox reported "somebody committed a mass shooting, must be a Muslim" - without any evidence - that would be biased reporting, inventing facts with no basis. Making a mistake is not a proof of bias, per se - unless there's a pattern of mistakes that always points in one direction regardless of the evidence. Then it's the definition of bias.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#243

Post by coldtea »

sprafa wrote: post #120
coldtea wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We always put out the official western establishment party line for those places, and we'll do the same for Trump's administration".

Do you actually think saying Iran is a repressive state is false? Do you actually think Bannon's statements are normal? It's at least Nixon level bullshit at the moment; I expect it to get worst.

>Do you actually think saying Iran is a repressive state is false?

In a way yes. Some peoples (populations) are predominantly conservative an religious, and want to be in a state that works that way.

Calling it conservative or backwards etc (and with a qualifier "according to our standards" etc even better) is OK. Calling it repressive, as if the people there do not want it, can be downright misleading if not calculated.

Not everybody has the "American dream" or western style democracy as their operating vision. And of course, it's easy to find some minority that is in opposition to the government everywhere, and present it such as it represents the majority. But it doesn't always, and seldom in such states, where some westernized affluent outliers (usually with twitter accounts) are paraded as "the voice of the new generation" etc, when they are as rare as hipsters in Salt Lake City.

Trump has the Presidential office, at least 30%+ of the voters, and some major outlets etc supporting him, would you say he is the "real voice of America"? I guess not, and that's fair. But people and media do it all the time with some minority groups in arab states, latin america, etc., that don't reflect the general sentiment in their country at all (but are convenient for foreign interests).

Even worse when this misreading turns a relatively stable country (Iraq, Libya) into a hell whole of civil war, chaos and fundamentalist muslim wackos of different fractions. Because some big powers interested in destabilizing the region or securing some natural resources for cheap convinced "do-gooders" that they are a "repressive state" and they need to "fix it". Millions have been murdered in fixing "repressive states" into far more repressive hellholes with the aid of such media reporting...

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#244

Post by breatheoften »

smsm42 wrote: post #242
breatheoften wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the media is biased to liberal side, it would be very reluctant to report on crime committed by somebody yelling "Allahu Akbar", at least this particular detail. In this particular case it worked to their favor, since the report turned out to be false. That doesn't mean the bias is good, it just means in one case this bias accidentally filtered out false information. There are plenty of cases where the same filter…

You simultaneously argue that liberal bias accidentally filters out this mistaken report from left wing outlets, without acknowledging that fox's bias plays a role in poor framing of unverified salacious details that they are strongly motivated to publish -- and publish they do, early and regardless of accuracy, when it supports their desired narrative.

This is absolutely a pattern in their reporting - one of many ways in which they misrepresent events.

I honestly can't believe I have to argue the case that Fox News is a biased media outlet -- the argument has been made by better people than me in far more depth. I don't think Fox itself would even deny they are biased...

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#245

Post by camperman »

akvadrako wrote: post #109
camperman wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is entirely intentional. The God Emperor is overwhelming you with shock and awe to make opposition seem pointless, which it is of course.

I don't know why you are downvoted, because it's clearly true. It's part of his playbook, The Art of the Deal. Scott Adams continues to be an annoying but fairly accurate narrator of the Trump narrative: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156399716951/outrage-dilution

Yep. I'm downvoted because anything even remotely right is on here.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#246

Post by justinlaster »

gravypod wrote: post #230
justinlaster wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're concern trolling. The information is readily out there. Your question puts forth a sense of "genuine" curiosity, but then later you compare the work the of the Clinton Foundation to that NAACP and Red Cross, and make judgements around that. So you presume to not know any charity work that's been done by the foundation, yet you're able to compare it to other charities. Why be so disingenuous? The Clinton Founda…

" Your question puts forth a sense of "genuine" curiosity, but then later you compare the work the of the Clinton Foundation to that NAACP and Red Cross, and make judgements around that. So you presume to not know any charity work that's been done by the foundation, yet you're able to compare it to other charities. Why be so disingenuous? " You're misunderstanding my point. If the money is going into the Clinton Foun…

It didn't go over my head. You're just deluding yourself.

>I'm drawing attention to the fact that they recive similar amounts of money and yet produce faaar more output then the Clinton Foundation and that's with the Red Cross being corrupt as hell.

Except they do not; at the very least you do not have any substantive evidence to back up that claim. Notice you could not source any of your examples, because they're not based on anything. They're just hypothetical scenarios with extremely arbitrary numbers and extremely contrived scenarios.

How come you did not source any examples from your other chosen charities to state they're actually "outputing" far more dollar for dollar? You were only extremely liberal with one -- going so far as to make up examples for it (despite most likely not having experience any relevant field for each charitable service). Why is that?

You claim the links you provided somehow qualify as "tangable" results, used as evidence for your overall point. Yet you chose to not link the equivalent pages from the clinton foundation website. Why is that?

Stop using conspiracy theories as facts.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#247

Post by chengiz »

smsm42 wrote: post #233
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 Is…

From a site whose raison d'etre is "Defending Israel from media bias", these examples are not very convincing.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#249

Post by InitialLastName »

williamle8300 wrote: post #143
sprafa wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is he's a hypocrite. How can you accuse the media of lying and lie all he time yourself? His IRS lie being the worst. He kept saying he couldn't do it, but that's just a straight lie.

I don't see the argument you're making. A free citizen has a right to keep their tax documents private. We can't feel entitled about that.

There's a difference between saying "It's my right not to do this thing" and "I can't do that thing". Either can be true or false. In the case of the taxes, he said the latter, and it was false.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#250

Post by protomyth »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #231
protomyth wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I also think the second quote that you gave is actually less of an attack than what I quoted from the same article.

A quote the says Mr. Murdock is peddling destruction for a tidy profit is less destructive? This is one hell of an insult and a character attack beyond what President Trump said to the press.

Questioning your actions is every bit a character attack when you imply the actions represent a person of low character. Separating them is just a polite head fake. If the person was not of low character they would not do evil actions.

Separating actions and character gives us people saying "the end justifies the means" which is basically the motto of evil people and the definition of evil.

Post reply on HN