Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zin, Oct 17, 2016.
Journalism, folks. Clinton style.
How do we know these emails are legit and not edited at all?
but but Russia.
Not one email has been denied as being genuine. WikiLeaks has a 10 year record in publishing pristine documents. WikiLeaks documents have previously been used in court. We've already had confirmations that some of them are genuine (e.g. Clinton herself during the debate, emails being matched to things that actually happened).
The burden is on you to prove that they are forged given that you are making an extraordinary claim, taking into consideration the above. I tend to think this discussion is nothing but a deflection from what these people have written in the emails.
I was just asking, not making any claim.
I think that says more about Politico, and the journalist in question, than it does Clinton/Podesta.
Isn't politico nothing more than a blog?
The server was set up in her bathroom? Yeah that has more to say about the guy that set up the server than her.
I'm sorry, I misread the part that the author's name is Hillary Clinton.
It's okay. The left doesn't see that the majority of media works for the democrats.
It's an email about her fundraising strategy. I would hope journalists run these sorts of stories by the subject of the story before publishing for accuracy. Otherwise, they are publishing without checking the facts. Likewise, I hope journalists verified with Trump's campaign if they wrote about any similar neutral issues. In fact, they have. Every article you see with a comment from Trump's campaign dealing with a policy of his was probably checked by the campaign.
Indeed. Anyway part of it's legit (asking if got something straight) but the part about here's the whole thing before it goes to press, no... a good journalist does not submit copy for approval, merely cites proposed assertions and asks for comment, i.e. confirmation, denial etc.
If it's strictly an opinion piece, then there's at least some wiggle room, but the piece should then be labeled as such and include reference to a subject having "reviewed" the piece.
Sigh. So should I keep listening to Thrush's podcasts? I'm backlogged on them as it is... Different medium, maybe similar approach? Am I to wonder if there are assorted pre-interview queries like "Will it be ok to ask you about this?..."
This whole whining about the media is really ridiculous. Trump has no one but himself to blame for the media's treatment of him.
He spent over a year putting them into special corralled-off sections for this supporters to boo and jeer at his rallies. Just folks doing their jobs, and Trump goes out of his way to make their day unpleasant.
He has consistently called for stricter libel and slander laws to sue the media, laws that would at least threaten journalists' livelihoods.
He's done everything he can to ensure they hate him, and then he is surprised that they actually do hate him? And then he whines about it!
If you mess with the people that handle your food, you get spit in your food. If you mess with the people that handle your press, you get spit in your press.
Then again, Trump knows what it's like to eat spit:
Actually the Fourth Estate works for the people. If it stopped bothering to do that, there would come a time when we would not even be able to pass a remark like you just did, even if it had become true in the meantime.
That is absolutely no excuse for journalists actively colluding with a political campaign. There are people on this forum that whine all the time about Fox News and its on-air bias yet I'm reading excuse after excuse for 'journalists' at other organisations working off-air actively with a political campaign.
Probably because "the left" doesn't live in the perpetual "woe is me" republican fantasy land.
How is getting the campaign to check "colluding". I'd expect them to do the same with Trump - or any other campaign.
Your mistake is confusing bloggers with journalists.
POLITICO isn't a blog. It's a mainstream news outlet.
Sharing your article with them before publishing is checking? Why didn't he want anybody to know he did it if it was just checking? Getting approval for your article to make sure you didn't '**** up' is not just checking with the campaign.
This is just one of many. There are other people who did far worse stuff. People wanting to do puff pieces in order to prop up Hillary, people agreeing to suppress certain parts of their stories, or articles being planted into various outlets. THAT is collusion, no matter how you spin it.
I haven't read anyone excusing the journalist's actions.
How else do they check?
--- Post Merged, Oct 17, 2016 ---
So where are the threads about those more significant issues?
--- Post Merged, Oct 17, 2016 ---
Check what? Ask them for a comment? There is no reason to be sharing an article with anybody prior to publication. There is certainly no reason to be sharing articles with the people you're covering before your own editors. If a journalist cannot write an article without the person they're covering telling them how to write it (and that journalist knows what they are doing is wrong), then that person should not be a journalist and instead should be a campaign spokesperson.
So how do you get them to comment or check for factual inaccuracies?
The old fashioned way? On the record statements from the people you're covering instead of giving them the entire article off the record to approve? Just a wild guess.
Isn't it the journalist's job to do the journalism and not the people that you're covering?