Reuters' position on covering Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#261

Post by smsm42 » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 1:22 AM UTC

klipt wrote: post #258

smsm42 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Consensus ... crowd pleasing ... dictators can do that. The hallmark of the dictator is their disrespect for individual rights, but you can totally please a crowd while stepping on individual rights, see Chavez: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/27/...

Consensus and crowd pleasing is not the same. And dictators aren't usually as good at pleasing the crowds as they think they are, otherwise there would be no need to suppress freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of elections, etc. which dictators (including Chavez, of course) routinely do.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#262

Post by chengiz » Sat, Feb 04, 2017, 10:33 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #254

chengiz wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why not? It's like saying "surely, from the guys whose raison d'etre is to research nuclear physics, these accelerator data are not very convincing". These people find examples of media bias and publish them. How the fact that they are specializing in doing it somehow invalidates their results?

Your analogy is not quite correct. I'm not saying Reuters didnt slant those articles in those particular examples but it could be a honest mistake; this site will never report when Reuters slants towards Israel because that is against its raison d'etre, so your examples are unconvincing as to Reuter's purported bias.

Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump

#263

Post by malnourish » Mon, Feb 06, 2017, 2:28 AM UTC

masonic wrote: post #256

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.

AP is probably the most partisan of the USA wire services. Here's an example: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3c437475b6384b91913d5ffee2b91... Note the partisan wording and contrast that with their past, fawning articles about the Pelosi-run House. "GOP pushes ..." "Republicans jammed ..." "... a warning shot that they might deploy brute political muscle ..." "With a near-toxic vapor of divisiveness between the two pa…

Interesting, thanks for the information. Seeing as I haven't read much of direct AP content I wasn't aware.