View Full Version : News Sources

December 20th, 2016, 11:13 AM
What is considered an acceptable media source to you, and why? If some sources are more appropriate for different situations for you, then explain your reasoning.

December 20th, 2016, 11:48 AM
Then I hope you question CNN's credibility, dignity, and respect for colluding with the Clinton campaign throughout the entirety of the election (revealed through the WikiLeaks revelations). And MSNBC, the New York Times, and other mass media corporations/independent sources (such as comedian Stephen Colbert!) confirmed to have colluded with the Clinton campaign throughout the election.

Some of this I agree with, some of it I dispute.

What do you agree with? What do you disagree with?

Per Wikileaks, these are the sources that are found to have had a direct dialogue with John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, throughout the election: ABC, the Associated Press, Aurn, Bloomberg, Buzzfeed, CBS, CNBC, CNN, Huffington Post, LA Times, McClatchy, MSNBC, the National Journal, NBC, the New York Times, NPR, Politico, Reuters, The Hill, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. This list does not include independent/freelance sources confirmed having opened a dialogue about their publications on the election with Mr. Podesta.

At least Trump's affiliation with Breitbart is out in the open (Bannon and Trump are friends). To uncover the information on Clinton's bias, we had to go through a whistleblower organization, one which has not been caught in a lie throughout the entirety of its existence.

December 20th, 2016, 12:00 PM
Acceptable? Any.

Trustworthy enough to take at face value? None.

December 20th, 2016, 12:04 PM
Acceptable? Any.

Trustworthy enough to take at face value? None.

This is my approach as well. Bias is often blatant.

December 20th, 2016, 12:08 PM
This is my approach as well. Bias is often blatant.

The funny thing is though. That as far as factual reporting or on time reporting goes

Traditional media is or rather already has gone the way of the dumpster.
And with the advent of social media and non-traditional media, information & news has become so thick in volume it's basically just noise - so facts matter even less...

And of course going after the facts yourself takes a lot of time & effort. Something 98% don't have or want to give.

Though I suppose there are still lots of people who believe that the news media & journalists are some kinds of guardians of democracy and transparency, so they are happy with our media and will mostly stick to consuming whatever confirms their own views.

Living For Love
December 20th, 2016, 01:58 PM
The thing is, if all international media is crooked and biased, where should I get my information from?

December 20th, 2016, 02:04 PM
The thing is, if all international media is crooked and biased, where should I get my information from?

I think Vlerchan said it pretty well.

I can, of course, if I have an issue with a certain source, research alternatives for myself. If I'm committed to rejecting a certain source then surely that burden must rest on me.

December 20th, 2016, 02:29 PM
Let us wade through the most damning Clinton&media collusion emails, one by one.

I was also told my legal skills would come in useful some day.

38 reporters were invited to an off-the-record cocktail party with Clinton staffers (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5953).
This is not evidence of collusion. This is evidence that Clinton's campaign made efforts to motivate reporters to see her in a positive light. Looking at the attachment to the email it is clear that their intentions are quite basic: give an insight into the timetable for Clinton's run-announcement and give an insight into Clinton's message before it is revealed to the public. There was without a doubt going to be some positive framing, but it in no way signals that the independence of the reporters attending an event was contravened.

Cooking for 30 of your reporter friends. We are very jammed up but if you want to come I can jam you in. (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4543#efmAAGABu)
Please review the above. It's worth noting that the more information reporters have on a candidate the more time that candidate can be in the media's eye; which the candidate wants. There is little to declare untoward here, unless you've entered with priors hostile to the Clinton campaign.

Clinton gets a townhall question from Brazile before hand. (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205#efmAD-AMa)
Brazile is clearly acting unethically and there is open questions about the ethics of the Clinton campaign when it comes to accepting the question. But this does not signal that the independence of CNN is contravened.

In the same sense, Bob B's leaking of a question to the Clinton team does not mean that FOX news' independence is contravened (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-fox-news-mole-leaked-town-hall-question-clinton-campaign/).

Clinton read from a script as part of the interview with MSNBC's Hayes. (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4274#efmAEcAWc)
This, on the other hand, is a good signal that MSNBC's independence is contravened.

This one has been described as Clinton planning her attack with two NYT reporters, but that just seems fucking nuts once you read the email. (https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4664)
The pair of writers referred to in this email were writing a story on Clinton's attack vector, with regards to Trump. They were looking to confirm that their understanding of the situation is correct.

NYT's Leibovich gives Clinton's campaign veto power with regards to an interview he took. (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDV1DWd)
It looks bad at first instance, but it's worth recalling that reporters who specialise in interviews have to cultivate relationships with politicians or securing a second interview can be difficult. This is a greater highlight into the strategic planning in multi-turn games with monopolistic competitors than NYT's independence being contravened. It would make a good theoretical economics publication, but it is far from a noteworthy news-story.

Politico's Thrush asks for approval from Podesta (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681#efmAByAEV).
He's writing a story about Podesta, it is rather clear he is looking for confirmation that his reporting is factually correct. The language makes it seem as if they know each other relatively well, though; But, then, that's no iron-clad proof that Thrush's independence has been contravened.

Boston Globe will give Clinton a big presence. (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4180#efmAJhALE)
This is just the author hoping that get information from the Clinton campaign so she can hand in her assignment on time. Pritchard saying that it will give them a 'big presence' is a means of encouraging them to hurry up whatever they were supposed to be doing, it's no evidence of collusion. It's rather clear that the Clinton campaign is dragging their heels on it, if it is.

Heat's Mensch gave them an idea for an advertisement. (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5740#efmAMvAUe)
Mensch was a rather prominent anti-Trumper, and ended up endorsing McMullin. She actually seems super conservative, if you read any of her op-eds, though. I'm doubtful that Clinton had her, or HEAT, in her pocket. But, if Mensch, in particular - as a self-described anti-SJW and conservative-libertarian - was biased against Trump - and, reminder, she fronted an anti-Trump campaign - I wouldn't be surprised.

Cummings is helpful as is AP. (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5502)
Zero context. The subject is NYT but AP also probably refers to a person, as opposed to Associate Press, just from how it is parsed.

But, without context, I'm not sure what anyone can home to gleam from this. Least with considerable reference to their priors.

HuffPost's Budowsky offers Clinton campaign advice about how to run their campaign. (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6453#efmARBAUVAVJAXBAfNAhWAkaAl4)
From the manner in which he also asks for permission to voice an opinion about Elizabeth Warren, it is rather clear that his independence as a reporter is contravened. Though, he was a former Democratic staffer so that might have been assumed. Mind you, he is an OP-ed writer, so HuffPost could have brought him in to give that sort of opinion. So, depending on your priors, you can take a host of different things about HuffPost from that.

Please re: above. He is an Obama political appointee. He also is an Op-Ed writers, so what this says about HuffPost itself is again open to interpretation.

He also has a blog on HuffPost as opposed to a column; I am not sure if that is a paid position; or what his roll within HuffPost might be, he has a full-time job otherwise.

[url=https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524#efmA14A2IA3AA36A9fA-kA-6BAICwpCx4]Clinton campaign giving story to Politico's friendly Haberman. (]HuffPost's Frank Islam offers his services to the Clinton Campaign.[/url)
Divulging a scope to someone that seems favorable towards you is not evidence of collusion.

That email is more-so interesting because it indicates that Stiglitz - an information economist - was going to get a cabinet position.

Clinton campaign giving story to AP's Lee or Klapper (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272#efmBKsBMU)
Please see above. In this case it's rather obvious that they are placing the story so that their line can get out ahead of anything else. This, again, isn't evidence of collusion, it's just evidence that Clinton's political campaign was, in fact, political.

Campaign working with personalities such as Jessica Valenti, Jamil Smith, and Sady Doyle. (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18566)
Valenti is a SJW blogger. Valentia, I checked, rejects that she colluded with the campaign.
Jamil Smith is a MTV news broadcaster.
Sady Doyle is another SJW blogger, this one is hosted on Tumblr.

Other than these people being nobodies, it is no evidence that their respective employers were colluding with the Clinton campaign.

Clinton staff 'controlling' the timing of AP publication releases (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8460)
It's a major stretch to claim it's 'controlling' releases. The AP rather seems to be giving the campaign the option between a nasty piece of press being published on them; or them doing a 1-to-1 sit-down interview where they discuss some thorny subjects. It might have been intended as a threat, but the Clinton campaign don't seem in control.

Clinton campaign colluding with NYT and WSJ reporters to frame their economic policies in a progressive light. (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9007#efmAcTAdS)
This email is titled for the 01 of February 2015. This was before Clinton's campaign had kicked off. The email is about a surrogate having spoken to reporters who they had pre-released elements of Clinton's economic policy and suggested they refer to these elements in light of progressive thought. The reporters - one might add - were already doing that. This is not evidence of collusion. This is evidence that the Clinton campaign tried to frame it's information dumps in a light that suited them.

CNBC panelist colluding with John Podesta as to what questions to ask Trump. (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7710#efmAakAd6AjgAlR)
This is what's called a Red Herring. Glenn Hutchins is a FED Banker, asked to be on CNBC during a discussion of, presumably, economic policy. This says nothing about CNBC as Hutchins is an unconnected private-individual, who was getting interviewed.

If a registered surrogate was going to be on television with Donald Trump and asked the campaign if they wanted anything to ask, we wouldn't care either.


For those of whom this was too long to read, I will add in summary.
It is rather clear that the Clinton campaign colluded directly with certain reporters and anchors - MSNBC and HuffPO in particualr - and it is possible that it might have colluded in terms that otherwise went undocumented in the Podesta emails. But what is not clear is that the Clinton campaign directed the coverage of news agencies; it strategically dropped information to reporters and services that had historically written them good coverage, and it sometimes did that to large groups, across multiple agencies. But that's not collusion. All it demonstrates is that the Clinton political campaign was, as anyone would expect, political.

December 20th, 2016, 04:04 PM
direct dialogue with John Podesta

Yeah, I thought it was pretty normal for campaigns to actually coordinate interviews and other such media appearances instead of randomly asking them stuff on the street like paparazzi. Apparently planning and coordination are incorrect now. Dialogue does not mean forcing an agenda or POV, by the way. Look, this is not nearly bad (if anything was bad)) as the way that Trump dealt with Fox News and Breitbart. He absorbed leadership from both orgs into his campaign, tainting their content. Clinton did not do that and that is where the difference begins to come into play.

At least Trump's affiliation with Breitbart is out in the open

As if that is better. Open, not open. It's the reaction to a mistake that matters. Bannon and Trump have no shame, and that is what disturbs me a little. Why would they have it open and continue the relationship if they had any sense of decency?

Honestly, I would say that most news does not even need "objective" coverage (which is impossible to attain, but possible to strive for). Usually, the only situation in which minimally-opinionated stuff needs to be written are events relating to politics. An example: All of the American cable news agencies tend to cover political news in different ways. However, all of them will cover the release of the new iPhone in the exact same way. Non-politicized information is generally not needed in that respect.

I also have to disagree with your statement that "bias is often blunt." Bias is everywhere and is unavoidable, only pure data is unbiased, but no one uses that until it has been refined into something easily digestible. Most bias is implicit, not explicit. This is the true danger, because I feel as if people are becoming less aware of the biases they see everyday. When the bias is so evident, that shows a lack of quality in writing in my opinion. By that point, you are sacrificing the quality of your writing to spread an ideological message.