I did not watch every news outlet's coverage of Clinton and Trump, but I don't recall them being treated the same by bigger news organization. The biggest focus on Trump was more the personal scandal sort of stuff like the pussy grabbing video correctly while the coverage of Clinton was usually more about corruption and organizational (emails!) sort of thing with the big exception being the health innuendo.
“Either you care both about Trump being sexual predator & Clinton emails, or u care about neither. But don’t talk about one without the other” from ABC News chief political analyst Matthew Dowd sums up what I remember the tone being.
More bullshit. "The press" in general are the villains? You do realise that there are a lot of journalists out there, right? Like tens of thousands? And a lot of them answer to no publisher, blogging directly on the web? And in fact, Trump himself communicates to the world via Twitter, no media needed?
This isn't the 1940s any more. The media can't control all information. FDR couldn't walk, guys.
However Comey *can* control what information is revealed. He's the director of the FBI. He had two things in his possession of vital import to the election. He chose to release one of them. This is on his head.
I'm really suspicious of the fact that so many "well meaning" people seem eager to blame the free press for everything. Very funny indeed, just as Putin has been meddling with the free press. Yes, very interesting. I feel that if I unblocked all those left-wing facebook spams of dubious source I might have a better idea of just why everyone has suddenly settled on the freedom of the press as the villain behind the election of Donald Trump.
The three network news broadcasts spent 32 minutes on all policy issues combined this year. And that was mostly terrorism. If the media's job is to inform the public, they are doing a terrible job at it.
This is a consumer choice issue. Honestly I got more info from Wikipedia and Google on the actual policy issues.
Here's the thing - news is not supposed to be product. The issues with the media, both here and in the UK, can all be traced to making news into another entertainment product.
It's always been entertainment, apart from occasional dry state broadcasts. There was always a lot of shitty media in the past, right since the invention of the press. Pamphlets about the exploits of recently hanged highwaymen were super popular in the 19th century. Vital news, right? Ah, rose-tinted spectacles.
I was a very nerdy child and loved to read newspapers in the late '80s and I can't say that they seem notably different these days. Still flawed, still useful, still sensationalistic.
What we have got differently these days is the instant response. A news story can be written, published, and spread to millions, all within an hour. Journalists are still struggling with this.
No, it really hasn't been, at least in the US. For a long time, broadcasters considered their news divisions to the "prestige" division of the network - not intended to generate revenue but to reflect well on the brand through their performance and credibility.
Honestly, I think part of your issue is that you grew up with the UK press, which has a lot more problems than the US press. Some of that's legal (the US press is much more legally protected, which allows them to be more aggressive with stories), and some of it is cultural (for a long time, newspapers were incredibly diverse thanks to American geography, making the sort of consolidation you see in the UK unfeasible until now.)
More bullshit. "The press" in general are the villains? You do realise that there are a lot of journalists out there, right? Like tens of thousands? And a lot of them answer to no publisher, blogging directly on the web? And in fact, Trump himself communicates to the world via Twitter, no media needed?
This isn't the 1940s any more. The media can't control all information. FDR couldn't walk, guys.
However Comey *can* control what information is revealed. He's the director of the FBI. He had two things in his possession of vital import to the election. He chose to release one of them. This is on his head.
I'm really suspicious of the fact that so many "well meaning" people seem eager to blame the free press for everything. Very funny indeed, just as Putin has been meddling with the free press. Yes, very interesting. I feel that if I unblocked all those left-wing facebook spams of dubious source I might have a better idea of just why everyone has suddenly settled on the freedom of the press as the villain behind the election of Donald Trump.
The three network news broadcasts spent 32 minutes on all policy issues combined this year. And that was mostly terrorism. If the media's job is to inform the public, they are doing a terrible job at it.
This is a consumer choice issue. Honestly I got more info from Wikipedia and Google on the actual policy issues.
Here's the thing - news is not supposed to be product. The issues with the media, both here and in the UK, can all be traced to making news into another entertainment product.
It's always been entertainment, apart from occasional dry state broadcasts. There was always a lot of shitty media in the past, right since the invention of the press. Pamphlets about the exploits of recently hanged highwaymen were super popular in the 19th century. Vital news, right? Ah, rose-tinted spectacles.
I was a very nerdy child and loved to read newspapers in the late '80s and I can't say that they seem notably different these days. Still flawed, still useful, still sensationalistic.
What we have got differently these days is the instant response. A news story can be written, published, and spread to millions, all within an hour. Journalists are still struggling with this.
Honestly, I think part of your issue is that you grew up with the UK press, which has a lot more problems than the US press. Some of that's legal (the US press is much more legally protected, which allows them to be more aggressive with stories), and some of it is cultural (for a long time, newspapers were incredibly diverse thanks to American geography, making the sort of consolidation you see in the UK unfeasible until now.)
With Gawker being taken down for being too scurrilous and consolidation being made possible by the internet, the US press will no doubt look much like the UK press soon, minus the titties. But there's no turning back the tide.
I did not watch every news outlet's coverage of Clinton and Trump, but I don't recall them being treated the same by bigger news organization. The biggest focus on Trump was more the personal scandal sort of stuff like the pussy grabbing video correctly while the coverage of Clinton was usually more about corruption and organizational (emails!) sort of thing with the big exception being the health innuendo.
“Either you care both about Trump being sexual predator & Clinton emails, or u care about neither. But don’t talk about one without the other” from ABC News chief political analyst Matthew Dowd sums up what I remember the tone being.
And that's a garbage way of dealing with the news.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I did not watch every news outlet's coverage of Clinton and Trump, but I don't recall them being treated the same by bigger news organization. The biggest focus on Trump was more the personal scandal sort of stuff like the pussy grabbing video correctly while the coverage of Clinton was usually more about corruption and organizational (emails!) sort of thing with the big exception being the health innuendo.
“Either you care both about Trump being sexual predator & Clinton emails, or u care about neither. But don’t talk about one without the other” from ABC News chief political analyst Matthew Dowd sums up what I remember the tone being.
And that's a garbage way of dealing with the news.
Why? I cared about both. As someone legally bound to follow very specific rules regarding email and its use, I found Clinton's behavior fairly disturbing. Certainly reflecting a degree of privilege and attitude of being 'above the rules' that applied to those not among the political ruling class.
I still found Trump to be worse, as he's a literal dumpster-fire of negative issues; but I expected to be informed about BOTH candidates by any reasonably balanced media outlet.
I think the default belief is if you cover republicans fairly it will be fairly negative coverage because they are a party of regressive awful ideas.
An opinion that may be in preponderance here, but is hardly representative of how the country at large feels.
You might want to take a look at what the party split is like for local/municipal governance. It isn't pretty for progressives.
*shrug* then those people will hear about republicans doing exactly the things they want them to
there's no victim here
Except those of us who'd rather not have *every* news outlet be a hyperpartisan mouthpiece for one or another party's talking points...
Everyone cocooning into their sides' echo chamber has not improved the political discourse in this country; if anything it's made things far worse.
Accurate reporting of events isn't the media being hyperpartisan nor is it creating an echo chamber.
Sometimes one person is demonstrably worse than the other. There's no balance or other side to the story. They just suck. And that's how the news should present the situation when it's true.
Accurate reporting of events isn't the media being hyperpartisan nor is it creating an echo chamber.
If you think "maintaining positive coverage of democratic politicians while maintaining negative coverage of republicans" (the statement I took issue with) is accurate reporting, rather than creating an echo chamber, I don't know what to tell you. That is basically literally the definition of a partisan echo chamber.
I did not watch every news outlet's coverage of Clinton and Trump, but I don't recall them being treated the same by bigger news organization. The biggest focus on Trump was more the personal scandal sort of stuff like the pussy grabbing video correctly while the coverage of Clinton was usually more about corruption and organizational (emails!) sort of thing with the big exception being the health innuendo.
“Either you care both about Trump being sexual predator & Clinton emails, or u care about neither. But don’t talk about one without the other” from ABC News chief political analyst Matthew Dowd sums up what I remember the tone being.
And that's a garbage way of dealing with the news.
Why? I cared about both. As someone legally bound to follow very specific rules regarding email and its use, I found Clinton's behavior fairly disturbing. Certainly reflecting a degree of privilege and attitude of being 'above the rules' that applied to those not among the political ruling class.
I still found Trump to be worse, as he's a literal dumpster-fire of negative issues; but I expected to be informed about BOTH candidates by any reasonably balanced media outlet.
The issue is the news reported both as if one was an equal to the other. Clintons email was consistently brought like it was a new scandal when it never ever was.
Trump says something shitty that day and the news would go "Clinton continues to be plagued with email issues." BECAUSE THE NEWS KEPT BRINGING IT UP!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Accurate reporting of events isn't the media being hyperpartisan nor is it creating an echo chamber.
If you think "maintaining positive coverage of democratic politicians while maintaining negative coverage of republicans" (the statement I took issue with) is accurate reporting, rather than creating an echo chamber, I don't know what to tell you. That is basically literally the definition of a partisan echo chamber.
I think that should happen if it accurately reflects events. Indeed the person saying it was referring to the two recent candidates for president who experienced "balanced" coverage, not proposing manufacturing positive or negative coverage.
More bullshit. "The press" in general are the villains? You do realise that there are a lot of journalists out there, right? Like tens of thousands? And a lot of them answer to no publisher, blogging directly on the web? And in fact, Trump himself communicates to the world via Twitter, no media needed?
This isn't the 1940s any more. The media can't control all information. FDR couldn't walk, guys.
However Comey *can* control what information is revealed. He's the director of the FBI. He had two things in his possession of vital import to the election. He chose to release one of them. This is on his head.
I'm really suspicious of the fact that so many "well meaning" people seem eager to blame the free press for everything. Very funny indeed, just as Putin has been meddling with the free press. Yes, very interesting. I feel that if I unblocked all those left-wing facebook spams of dubious source I might have a better idea of just why everyone has suddenly settled on the freedom of the press as the villain behind the election of Donald Trump.
The three network news broadcasts spent 32 minutes on all policy issues combined this year. And that was mostly terrorism. If the media's job is to inform the public, they are doing a terrible job at it.
This is a consumer choice issue. Honestly I got more info from Wikipedia and Google on the actual policy issues.
Here's the thing - news is not supposed to be product. The issues with the media, both here and in the UK, can all be traced to making news into another entertainment product.
It's always been entertainment, apart from occasional dry state broadcasts. There was always a lot of shitty media in the past, right since the invention of the press. Pamphlets about the exploits of recently hanged highwaymen were super popular in the 19th century. Vital news, right? Ah, rose-tinted spectacles.
I was a very nerdy child and loved to read newspapers in the late '80s and I can't say that they seem notably different these days. Still flawed, still useful, still sensationalistic.
What we have got differently these days is the instant response. A news story can be written, published, and spread to millions, all within an hour. Journalists are still struggling with this.
And everyone's got to be first, even if the first story is untrue. Retractions and corrections are published later, if ever, and never on the front page, which has already moved on to the next "First!"
it is not their job to baby us, the fact that our populace appear to be about 30% incapable and uninterested in critical thinking or actually reading more than a headline is not on them.
Yes it is! It is incumbent on the media to write headlines which correspond to both the factual and substantive truth of the matter. It is incumbent on them to do this precisely because not every person will read the entire article with a critical evaluation of the facts.
If everyone was capable and interested in critical thinking we would not need newspaper headlines or even really newspapers. It is because democracy needs a well informed populace that newspapers have this obligation.
More bullshit. "The press" in general are the villains? You do realise that there are a lot of journalists out there, right? Like tens of thousands? And a lot of them answer to no publisher, blogging directly on the web? And in fact, Trump himself communicates to the world via Twitter, no media needed?
This isn't the 1940s any more. The media can't control all information. FDR couldn't walk, guys.
However Comey *can* control what information is revealed. He's the director of the FBI. He had two things in his possession of vital import to the election. He chose to release one of them. This is on his head.
I'm really suspicious of the fact that so many "well meaning" people seem eager to blame the free press for everything. Very funny indeed, just as Putin has been meddling with the free press. Yes, very interesting. I feel that if I unblocked all those left-wing facebook spams of dubious source I might have a better idea of just why everyone has suddenly settled on the freedom of the press as the villain behind the election of Donald Trump.
The three network news broadcasts spent 32 minutes on all policy issues combined this year. And that was mostly terrorism. If the media's job is to inform the public, they are doing a terrible job at it.
This is a consumer choice issue. Honestly I got more info from Wikipedia and Google on the actual policy issues.
Here's the thing - news is not supposed to be product. The issues with the media, both here and in the UK, can all be traced to making news into another entertainment product.
It's always been entertainment, apart from occasional dry state broadcasts. There was always a lot of shitty media in the past, right since the invention of the press. Pamphlets about the exploits of recently hanged highwaymen were super popular in the 19th century. Vital news, right? Ah, rose-tinted spectacles.
I was a very nerdy child and loved to read newspapers in the late '80s and I can't say that they seem notably different these days. Still flawed, still useful, still sensationalistic.
What we have got differently these days is the instant response. A news story can be written, published, and spread to millions, all within an hour. Journalists are still struggling with this.
Aye, the "serious" media of Edward R. Murrow and Cronkite was an anomaly of the post-war years, as i've said before. The insanity has been a slow reversion to the mean, and frankly it's still not as bad as it was 100 years ago, though if fake news gets us into a war, then we'll be back to the bad old days.
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The media has a duty to inform the public, not simply cater to popular whims. The email story had merit as a piece of news and information about Clinton, even if it was often misreported and wildly overreported. Much less defensible is the media's abdication of their responsibility to inform the public about each candidate's policy and what the implications of that policy are.
no particular outlet is perfect but if you're targeting the nyt/cnn/wapo you need to take a step back and consider the broad war we are fighting... the other side is attacking reality, information, the "msm". we cannot help them.
Perhaps you should take a step back and consider that not everyone wants journalist to be synonymous with stenographer. I would like the news media to stop assisting "the other side" with their attacks.
Most of the issue with Clinton was that there were *so many* articles about her emails. Individually, they were innocent, often making the same points about the reports being nothing. But there were a lot of them, because news outlets felt they needed to cover negative stuff about Clinton since every day Trump said something crazy so there was a lot of negative stuff about him.
Most of the issue with Clinton was that there were *so many* articles about her emails. Individually, they were innocent, often making the same points about the reports being nothing. But there were a lot of them, because news outlets felt they needed to cover negative stuff about Clinton since every day Trump said something crazy so there was a lot of negative stuff about him.
The media has a duty to inform the public, not simply cater to popular whims. The email story had merit as a piece of news and information about Clinton, even if it was often misreported and wildly overreported. Much less defensible is the media's abdication of their responsibility to inform the public about each candidate's policy and what the implications of that policy are.
Yes. Most Republicans seem wildly misinformed about the ACA and what repealing it will mean.
Most of the issue with Clinton was that there were *so many* articles about her emails. Individually, they were innocent, often making the same points about the reports being nothing. But there were a lot of them, because news outlets felt they needed to cover negative stuff about Clinton since every day Trump said something crazy so there was a lot of negative stuff about him.
Yes that is the primary complaint.
Hard for any individual journalist to do anything about.
Most of the issue with Clinton was that there were *so many* articles about her emails. Individually, they were innocent, often making the same points about the reports being nothing. But there were a lot of them, because news outlets felt they needed to cover negative stuff about Clinton since every day Trump said something crazy so there was a lot of negative stuff about him.
Yes that is the primary complaint.
Hard for any individual journalist to do anything about.
Yes it is. Shame the entire industry that everyone has been complaining about is such shit.
Most of the issue with Clinton was that there were *so many* articles about her emails. Individually, they were innocent, often making the same points about the reports being nothing. But there were a lot of them, because news outlets felt they needed to cover negative stuff about Clinton since every day Trump said something crazy so there was a lot of negative stuff about him.
Yes that is the primary complaint.
Hard for any individual journalist to do anything about.
Not fall into the "this needs to be balanced trap?" Like literally that was the issue, they balanced negative trump coverage by bringing up not actively anything Clinton "problems" then of course was the FBI openly fucked open the can of worms with nothing as well. And the newsplosion that resulted.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Most of the issue with Clinton was that there were *so many* articles about her emails. Individually, they were innocent, often making the same points about the reports being nothing. But there were a lot of them, because news outlets felt they needed to cover negative stuff about Clinton since every day Trump said something crazy so there was a lot of negative stuff about him.
Yes that is the primary complaint.
Hard for any individual journalist to do anything about.
Hm, who could possibly weigh in with some kind of editorial judgment and decide what journalists should be writing about?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Most of the issue with Clinton was that there were *so many* articles about her emails. Individually, they were innocent, often making the same points about the reports being nothing. But there were a lot of them, because news outlets felt they needed to cover negative stuff about Clinton since every day Trump said something crazy so there was a lot of negative stuff about him.
Yes that is the primary complaint.
Hard for any individual journalist to do anything about.
Hm, who could possibly weigh in with some kind of editorial judgment and decide what journalists should be writing about?
I can't take warhawk "journalists" like Chait seriously, sorry to say. Man never knew a war that he didn't liked until it wasn't convenient for him to do so.
+2
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
it is not their job to baby us, the fact that our populace appear to be about 30% incapable and uninterested in critical thinking or actually reading more than a headline is not on them.
Yes it is! It is incumbent on the media to write headlines which correspond to both the factual and substantive truth of the matter. It is incumbent on them to do this precisely because not every person will read the entire article with a critical evaluation of the facts.
If everyone was capable and interested in critical thinking we would not need newspaper headlines or even really newspapers. It is because democracy needs a well informed populace that newspapers have this obligation.
so they're obligated to... what exactly? convey every single bit of info in the headline? convey zero info in the headline so no one misinterprets?
not sure how to deal with what you're saying here.
I can't take warhawk "journalists" like Chait seriously, sorry to say. Man never knew a war that he didn't liked until it wasn't convenient for him to do so.
He's also been a right goose about safe spaces and trigger warnings, and was one of the people arguing about "impropriety" at the Clinton Foundation.
Edit: He's also goosey on education, and initially didn't disclose his conflict of interest (his wife works for an education "reform" organization).
it is not their job to baby us, the fact that our populace appear to be about 30% incapable and uninterested in critical thinking or actually reading more than a headline is not on them.
Yes it is! It is incumbent on the media to write headlines which correspond to both the factual and substantive truth of the matter. It is incumbent on them to do this precisely because not every person will read the entire article with a critical evaluation of the facts.
If everyone was capable and interested in critical thinking we would not need newspaper headlines or even really newspapers. It is because democracy needs a well informed populace that newspapers have this obligation.
so they're obligated to... what exactly? convey every single bit of info in the headline? convey zero info in the headline so no one misinterprets?
not sure how to deal with what you're saying here.
don't write misleading headlines that are contradicted by information immediately below in the article
don't write clickbait headlines
don't write stories with glaring mistakes and then print retractions in tiny print on page 10
it is not their job to baby us, the fact that our populace appear to be about 30% incapable and uninterested in critical thinking or actually reading more than a headline is not on them.
Yes it is! It is incumbent on the media to write headlines which correspond to both the factual and substantive truth of the matter. It is incumbent on them to do this precisely because not every person will read the entire article with a critical evaluation of the facts.
If everyone was capable and interested in critical thinking we would not need newspaper headlines or even really newspapers. It is because democracy needs a well informed populace that newspapers have this obligation.
so they're obligated to... what exactly? convey every single bit of info in the headline? convey zero info in the headline so no one misinterprets?
not sure how to deal with what you're saying here.
They're obligated to create less shitty headlines that more accurately convey what happened.
it is not their job to baby us, the fact that our populace appear to be about 30% incapable and uninterested in critical thinking or actually reading more than a headline is not on them.
Yes it is! It is incumbent on the media to write headlines which correspond to both the factual and substantive truth of the matter. It is incumbent on them to do this precisely because not every person will read the entire article with a critical evaluation of the facts.
If everyone was capable and interested in critical thinking we would not need newspaper headlines or even really newspapers. It is because democracy needs a well informed populace that newspapers have this obligation.
so they're obligated to... what exactly? convey every single bit of info in the headline? convey zero info in the headline so no one misinterprets?
not sure how to deal with what you're saying here.
don't write misleading headlines that are contradicted by information immediately below in the article
don't write clickbait headlines
don't write stories with glaring mistakes and then print retractions in tiny print on page 10
Don't follow Trump's twitter like a cat behind the car keys.
it is not their job to baby us, the fact that our populace appear to be about 30% incapable and uninterested in critical thinking or actually reading more than a headline is not on them.
Yes it is! It is incumbent on the media to write headlines which correspond to both the factual and substantive truth of the matter. It is incumbent on them to do this precisely because not every person will read the entire article with a critical evaluation of the facts.
If everyone was capable and interested in critical thinking we would not need newspaper headlines or even really newspapers. It is because democracy needs a well informed populace that newspapers have this obligation.
so they're obligated to... what exactly? convey every single bit of info in the headline? convey zero info in the headline so no one misinterprets?
not sure how to deal with what you're saying here.
Convey factual and substantive truth. That is, it needs to both not be incorrect, and not produce an incorrect perception of the event.
With regards to whether or not an article should be written then a similar test based on the expected effect and public interest.
For instance you would not want to write an article about FDR and say that he cannot walk. It is neither in the public interest and does not have an effect commensurate with the information. If for some reason you got scooped, you sure as fuck would not write the headline "PRESIDENT INCAPACITATED!" because it would not be substantively true. (edit: A person reading that headline would assume the President was unable to carry out their duties, and that is not the substance of the news)
Chait's an asshole about anything that's not a straight white dude. But he writes some interesting stuff from a liberalish straight white dude standpoint.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Chait's an asshole about anything that's not a straight white dude. But he writes some interesting stuff from a liberalish straight white dude standpoint.
Unfortunately, that viewpoint gets in the way more often than not.
I'm pretty sure that the journalist doesn't tend to write the headline, that's not how newspapers work.
I am pretty sure they're not generated out of the ether either. Someone has to write the headline and that person has the duty to write it so that it conveys the substantive truth of the article.
Edit: Like, not sure why "well the editor makes that call" is any kind of answer to "headlines need to be better". Hell, if it was journalists writing the headlines it would reduce the obligation of the newspaper in having accurate headlines because it would have an argument that the headline is not their own speech (rather their journalists). If they're writing then they're expressing their editorial control, and if they're doing that in order to reduce the substantive truth of headlines then they're being shit and deserve to be harangued for it
Chait's an asshole about anything that's not a straight white dude. But he writes some interesting stuff from a liberalish straight white dude standpoint.
Unfortunately, that viewpoint gets in the way more often than not.
Yeah. I'm also contractually obligated to defend all Michigan graduates except like, Kacynzski and Coulter.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
“Either you care both about Trump being sexual predator & Clinton emails, or u care about neither. But don’t talk about one without the other” from ABC News chief political analyst Matthew Dowd sums up what I remember the tone being.
No, it really hasn't been, at least in the US. For a long time, broadcasters considered their news divisions to the "prestige" division of the network - not intended to generate revenue but to reflect well on the brand through their performance and credibility.
Honestly, I think part of your issue is that you grew up with the UK press, which has a lot more problems than the US press. Some of that's legal (the US press is much more legally protected, which allows them to be more aggressive with stories), and some of it is cultural (for a long time, newspapers were incredibly diverse thanks to American geography, making the sort of consolidation you see in the UK unfeasible until now.)
With Gawker being taken down for being too scurrilous and consolidation being made possible by the internet, the US press will no doubt look much like the UK press soon, minus the titties. But there's no turning back the tide.
And that's a garbage way of dealing with the news.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Except those of us who'd rather not have *every* news outlet be a hyperpartisan mouthpiece for one or another party's talking points...
Everyone cocooning into their sides' echo chamber has not improved the political discourse in this country; if anything it's made things far worse. Why? I cared about both. As someone legally bound to follow very specific rules regarding email and its use, I found Clinton's behavior fairly disturbing. Certainly reflecting a degree of privilege and attitude of being 'above the rules' that applied to those not among the political ruling class.
I still found Trump to be worse, as he's a literal dumpster-fire of negative issues; but I expected to be informed about BOTH candidates by any reasonably balanced media outlet.
Accurate reporting of events isn't the media being hyperpartisan nor is it creating an echo chamber.
Sometimes one person is demonstrably worse than the other. There's no balance or other side to the story. They just suck. And that's how the news should present the situation when it's true.
The issue is the news reported both as if one was an equal to the other. Clintons email was consistently brought like it was a new scandal when it never ever was.
Trump says something shitty that day and the news would go "Clinton continues to be plagued with email issues." BECAUSE THE NEWS KEPT BRINGING IT UP!
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think that should happen if it accurately reflects events. Indeed the person saying it was referring to the two recent candidates for president who experienced "balanced" coverage, not proposing manufacturing positive or negative coverage.
And everyone's got to be first, even if the first story is untrue. Retractions and corrections are published later, if ever, and never on the front page, which has already moved on to the next "First!"
@Variable
Yes it is! It is incumbent on the media to write headlines which correspond to both the factual and substantive truth of the matter. It is incumbent on them to do this precisely because not every person will read the entire article with a critical evaluation of the facts.
If everyone was capable and interested in critical thinking we would not need newspaper headlines or even really newspapers. It is because democracy needs a well informed populace that newspapers have this obligation.
Aye, the "serious" media of Edward R. Murrow and Cronkite was an anomaly of the post-war years, as i've said before. The insanity has been a slow reversion to the mean, and frankly it's still not as bad as it was 100 years ago, though if fake news gets us into a war, then we'll be back to the bad old days.
Would you kindly go fuck yourself, Jon Chait?
Perhaps you should take a step back and consider that not everyone wants journalist to be synonymous with stenographer. I would like the news media to stop assisting "the other side" with their attacks.
Yes that is the primary complaint.
Yes. Most Republicans seem wildly misinformed about the ACA and what repealing it will mean.
Hard for any individual journalist to do anything about.
Yes it is. Shame the entire industry that everyone has been complaining about is such shit.
Not fall into the "this needs to be balanced trap?" Like literally that was the issue, they balanced negative trump coverage by bringing up not actively anything Clinton "problems" then of course was the FBI openly fucked open the can of worms with nothing as well. And the newsplosion that resulted.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Hm, who could possibly weigh in with some kind of editorial judgment and decide what journalists should be writing about?
It is a mystery.
so they're obligated to... what exactly? convey every single bit of info in the headline? convey zero info in the headline so no one misinterprets?
not sure how to deal with what you're saying here.
He's also been a right goose about safe spaces and trigger warnings, and was one of the people arguing about "impropriety" at the Clinton Foundation.
Edit: He's also goosey on education, and initially didn't disclose his conflict of interest (his wife works for an education "reform" organization).
don't write misleading headlines that are contradicted by information immediately below in the article
don't write clickbait headlines
don't write stories with glaring mistakes and then print retractions in tiny print on page 10
They're obligated to create less shitty headlines that more accurately convey what happened.
Don't follow Trump's twitter like a cat behind the car keys.
Convey factual and substantive truth. That is, it needs to both not be incorrect, and not produce an incorrect perception of the event.
With regards to whether or not an article should be written then a similar test based on the expected effect and public interest.
For instance you would not want to write an article about FDR and say that he cannot walk. It is neither in the public interest and does not have an effect commensurate with the information. If for some reason you got scooped, you sure as fuck would not write the headline "PRESIDENT INCAPACITATED!" because it would not be substantively true. (edit: A person reading that headline would assume the President was unable to carry out their duties, and that is not the substance of the news)
Unfortunately, that viewpoint gets in the way more often than not.
I am pretty sure they're not generated out of the ether either. Someone has to write the headline and that person has the duty to write it so that it conveys the substantive truth of the article.
Edit: Like, not sure why "well the editor makes that call" is any kind of answer to "headlines need to be better". Hell, if it was journalists writing the headlines it would reduce the obligation of the newspaper in having accurate headlines because it would have an argument that the headline is not their own speech (rather their journalists). If they're writing then they're expressing their editorial control, and if they're doing that in order to reduce the substantive truth of headlines then they're being shit and deserve to be harangued for it
Yeah. I'm also contractually obligated to defend all Michigan graduates except like, Kacynzski and Coulter.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This happens a lot; click bait just refined it to an art.
Have you noticed that if you go to Cracked, then go back the next day, the article you read usually changes title?