15 ms·

It saddens me greatly to hear this sentiment reflected here at Hacker News. To reject the entire institution of journalism is a radical position, and not justif

It saddens me greatly to hear this sentiment reflected here at Hacker News. To reject the entire institution of journalism is a radical position, and not justified by fact. Manipulating the timing of release is a common tool used by literally every public figure and institution. To characterize timing manipulation as collusion and to imply that it means no-one can be trusted is a critical mistake. Given my position, I think it's useful to state what would undermine the credibility of an institution of journalism. It's actually really simple: if it persistently reports incidents for which there is no proof, or if it reports incidents in such a way that obscures the facts themselves (spin). Any institution that regularly confuses editorializing for journalism losses its credibility. By these rules there are many institutions that are not trustworthy (e.g. Fox) but there are many institutions that are (the NYT).

grandalf 10y ago
How is the NYT trustworthy. The front page contains a dozen or so anti-Trump stories and zero about anything in the email leaks. I want to trust the NYTimes but it's hard to take seriously a paper that ignores something important. The same would be true if it had ignored Trump's leaked tax docs.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  That is because the recent email leaks just validated what everyone already knew about Hillary Clinton and her campaign. The fact that the emails were LEAKED OMG is not the newsworthy part. It is what is in them. And largely speaking, there's not much news in them. IMO a major problem in the U.S. today is that not many people understand how political campaigns or the federal government actually work. So a lot of people can be led to believe that boringly standard practices like revising talking points over email, and getting updates on court hearings, are actually proof of corruption. But they're not.
  - angry-hacker 10y ago
    And what don't we already know about Trump? Even if true, if this is serious journalism, why they keep printing she said he said? Wouldn't it be excellent time to print the stories of the alleged rape victims of Bill Clinton too? Since they publicly admit he and Hillary is a team? If you think media is not one sides, even if sided slightly more sane side, you're out of your mind.
    - jphillipsio 10y ago
      These stories were beaten to death in the 90's. Back then, I hoped that they would impeach Bill just so I wouldn't have to hear about it any more. I don't think you'll find many people that want to do it all over again.
  - drumdance 10y ago
    > LEAKED I've not heard anywhere that they were leaked, which suggests a disgruntled insider. The US government claims that they were hacked, and apparently that information was communicate to both Trump and Clinton in their national security briefings. Assange has not been forthcoming about the source of the emails.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    Not sure I agree. Is a conspiracy by top officials at the DNC to harm a party candidate during the primary a minor deal? To me this is corruption at close to the highest level. Yes, it's a private org, but one that is critical to the functioning of our democracy. Is a candidate making promises to wall street that directly contradict her campaign promises a minor deal? Well, we can cynically assume all pols are dishonest, or the press can help us simply hold all pols accountable for their promises. I'd like to see fewer promises made and more promises kept. It was frankly a bit shady that HRC refused to release the transcripts, and I think there is a newsworthy story detailing the interest groups she was courting and why they are so influential in American politics.
    - snowwrestler 10y ago
      The DNC Sanders emails were extremely widely covered when they came out earlier this year and led directly to a change in leadership at DNC. Are you trying to suggest those got ignored? I've looked through the Goldman transcripts, and maybe I'm stupid, but I didn't see her making any promises. If you've got a direct quote, lay it on me. I'm not holding my breath, though, since so far you only seem interested in vague concern-trolling.
      - grandalf 10y ago
        > led directly to a change in leadership at DNC. Yes, followed by the person who was forced to step down being immediately re-hired by the HRC campaign. What is troubling about it is what it suggests about HRC -- that she got cronies into powerful positions in the DNC, that they helped subvert the primary process in her favor, and that she re-hired the disgraced DNC leader, signaling to any other cronies that she'd have their back if they got caught, too. The issue is institutional corruption, and it should be the main story out of the leaked emails. Politics can get ugly, but the purpose of the primary is to vet the candidates that have pledged allegiance to the party by letting party members vote in the primary election. In my opinion, HRC should have been put on the spot to answer for why the corruption that benefitted her happened, and why she re-hired DWS the next day. I'm not aligned with either party so I don't care so much who the candidate is, but I do care about the quality of the institutions that are part of our democratic system. We should all care, because the institutions (and their lack of corruption) is more important than who wins any single election (primary or secondary). When you think about all the idealistic Sanders supporters who donated money and time only to have their trusted DNC leaders try to sabotage their preferred candidate, the amount of harm done to our democracy by this was substantial. Think of the cynicism and frustration it created, all so that HRC would be a few percent more likely to win the nomination, and win it in an unfair way. Politics is a long term game. Partisans like to tell us it's urgent and that we must act immediately (regardless of the costs) to impact the most important election in history. This fake urgency is the technique GWB used to sell the Iraq war. It's an effective but embarrassingly dishonest propaganda technique.
- linkregister 10y ago
  The NYT is the publication that originated the story about the HRC external email server during her tenure at the State Department. The NYT frequently publishes articles critical of Hillary Clinton. Here are several hundred: https://www.reddit.com/search?q=subreddit%3Athe_donald+site%3Anytimes.com https://www.reddit.com/search?q=subreddit%3Athe_donald+site%... I'm using this example as an internet community that curates information critical to Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party campaigns. In that list are several that discuss content within the email leaks in a fashion critical to Hillary Clinton. Publications should be permitted to publish stories critical of both major political parties.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    Many of these are old and do not address the content of the emails. There are perhaps 100 significant stories that could have been written based on the information leaked in the past 10 days. We got zero. The paper has also declined to collaborate with Assange to release stories about many other leaks. The NYT is America's Pravda. By the establishment and for the establishment... the definition of conservative. To think of all those who undertook personal risk over the years to build a great news organization! Too much competition from buzzfeed seems to have left the paper toothless and officious. Historians will likely view the gutting of the adversarial, investigative press as the factor that accelerated our civilization's return to authoritarianism.
    - linkregister 10y ago
      I see two sentences of substance in your bizarre response. > Many of these are old and do not address the content of the emails. There are perhaps 100 significant stories that could have been written based on the information leaked in the past 10 days. We got zero. I found this after 1 second of internet searching: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-wikileaks.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/hillary-clinto.... > Too much competition from buzzfeed seems to have left the paper toothless and officious. Buzzfeed has a substantial investigative reporting arm; its depth has been lauded frequently on HN: https://www.buzzfeed.com/news https://www.buzzfeed.com/news
- nostrebored 10y ago
  Beyond that, the NYT actively culls comments that disagree with their political position. Even when this is not happening, they try to shape discourse with the NYT picks. Even when I do agree with their positions, it is disconcerting to feel like I am being spoonfed political ideology.
- CreRecombinase 10y ago
  This is a false equivalency. The job of the media is not to present the two sides of every story equally.
camiller 10y ago
Sorry but wasn't the NYT shown to be colluding with the DNC to stack the deck against Sanders in the emails wikileaks published from the DNC hack? https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-bernie-sanders-article-for-clinton-campaign-5156a43755ca#.lydfxtjyx https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-berni...
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  No. EDIT: for context, if you go read the actual emails, what you see are totally bog-standard comments of a PR team reacting to a story once it posted, and again when the NYT updated it, as the NYT (and other papers) often do.
  - camiller 10y ago
    Yes, but they updated it in a fashion to downplay potential misuse of the JVF in Clinton's favor. Edit: for context "We were able to keep him from including more on the JVF, it has a mention in there, but between us and a conversation he had with Marc Elias he finally backed off from focusing too much on that."
    - snowwrestler 10y ago
      That was in the initial version of the story. As DWS says right in the email, the update added comments from Longabaugh. This email chain is a total non-story. The NYTimes called the DNC for comment, and the DNC attempted to shape the story. That is basic PR 101. We know the Sanders campaign did the same thing, because the story includes confidential information from his campaign, and comments from his surrogates. We just don't have Wikileaks access to the emails from his campaign (thank goodness).
awacs 10y ago
I concur with this view. I don't necessarily think the Wikileaks are not valid, but from my point of view, Wikileaks lost all credibility being 100% anti-Hillary, with zero anti-Trump information released. Somehow I don't think the RNC would have much different internal e-mails floating around at this point. That being said, I read the Goldman transcripts and other things that were supposed to be so damaging, and they really weren't that bad, beyond any other typical politician. Is she corrupt, absolutely. Is there a giant media conspiracy (now including SNL) against Trump? Ridiculous. He makes his own wounds. In addition, even Mike Pence has now admitted Russia is disseminating information to Wikileaks. So we have a clear connection between Russia / Putin and Trump. I don't believe it's as far as many think with them working together, but clearly someone as thin skinned and easily manipulated as Trump would be a total win for Putin. We can talk about Hillary's collusion, Clinton Foundation corruptness and such, but how the Putin pro Trump position is not as relevant is beyond me, if not the deal breaker considering the state of Russia / American current affairs.
- wmil 10y ago
  The RNC was fairly openly anti-Trump during the primaries, there won't be any evidence of them cheating on his behalf. Also there's no real need to take anti-Trump info to Wikileaks. The NYT was willing to publish one of Trump's tax returns from the 90s and those are legally protected. You can take anti-trump documents to any major newspaper.
- linkregister 10y ago
  I don't think it's entirely fair to blame this imbalance on Wikileaks; they may not have received any information derogatory to the Trump campaign. Wikileaks' current agenda appears to be to disrupt Western governments through leaking damaging information. I don't see a clear preference for political parties; the Manning leaks were damaging to the Republican Bush administration. I believe that the most probable source of the DNC leaks is Russian government units, but not for the purposes of election manipulation. Here is an article that most credibly posits this theory: https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russian-spycraft-how-kremlin-hacked-its-way-into-a-crisis-55679 https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russian-spycraft-how-kre....
oh_sigh 10y ago
NYT tried to push their Trump sex assault stories, but the stories were just "They said that Trump did something bad many years ago", with no proof, no witnesses, no evidence at all, other than their word. And then some of the women show up on TV with their lawyer, Gloria Allred, who is in close connection with HRCs campaign(as attested by the Podesta wikileaks) and has vowed her support for HRC to win. And then there is strange behavior from some of the accusers, like begging Trump to visit their restaurant/business, which would be a strange thing to do to someone who sexually assaulted you(not impossible behavior, but all of these things add up)
natural219 10y ago
Let's say that, as a hypothetical, 1-2% of the population per year have been experiencing exactly what you describe as credibility-undermining behavior from major publications. If you are not one of those 1-2%, how would you know about it?
ta_donk_gt 10y ago
Behavior such as these from CNN: [1] and [2] has been par for the course for the mainstream media as far as I have seen this year. Scare, divert, suppress, collude, whatever it takes to avoid the public getting to the truth if it will hurt their candidate. I just can't understand how this does not scare people. How is this different from the state run media in third-world countries we used to laugh at as kids? It may be working out for your team _this_time_, but the same behavior will almost certainly be used against you in the future. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWKwEBIkYhI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWKwEBIkYhI [2] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205
- hiringmanager 10y ago
  I can say that the media took a sharp turn around 2000-2001 era, especially after 9/11. The rise of 24x7 news outlets and the internet (which has killed journalism in newspapers financially) turned it into basically a PR agency for the government and powerful interests. "Scare, divert, suppress, collude" have been tactics that have gone on at least for the past 16 years. In fact, I think they were going on in the 15 years before that as well, though they were less pronounced, less obvious and less extreme. The media has probably always been a bit of a propaganda organ... it's just that the voices were a lot more diverse. The really alarming thing we've seen this year is Google, Facebook and Reddit starting to use algorithms to suppress some voices and amplify others. Combine that with "Correct The Record" (the army of paid hillary shills who have taken over at least reddit) and the internet is no longer the alternative where you can have a reasonable discussion. Why participate when your opponent is most likely a hired troll?
  - api 10y ago
    I wonder how much of Reddit is just paid troll armies battling other paid troll armies?
    - 4ad 10y ago
      Why single out reddit? I wonder the same about 4chan and hacker news.
droopybuns 10y ago
>> Any institution that regularly confuses editorializing for journalism losses its credibility. By these rules there are many institutions that are not trustworthy (e.g. Fox) but there are many institutions that are (the NYT). My counterpoint: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/technology/yahoo-data-breach-hacking.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/technology/yahoo-data-b... Anonymous quotes. Unsourced claims. Revisionist history designed to tear down one individual (Mayer) to protect another (Stamos)
feelix 10y ago
> what would undermine the credibility of an institution of journalism You missed out the most important thing which would undermine the credibility of an institution of journalism. And it is the the most common one which is the most heavily engaged in. And that is choosing not to report certain stories and facts, even though they are of great significance.

grandalf 10y ago

How is the NYT trustworthy. The front page contains a dozen or so anti-Trump stories and zero about anything in the email leaks. I want to trust the NYTimes but it's hard to take seriously a paper that ignores something important. The same would be true if it had ignored Trump's leaked tax docs.

snowwrestler 10y ago
That is because the recent email leaks just validated what everyone already knew about Hillary Clinton and her campaign. The fact that the emails were LEAKED OMG is not the newsworthy part. It is what is in them. And largely speaking, there's not much news in them. IMO a major problem in the U.S. today is that not many people understand how political campaigns or the federal government actually work. So a lot of people can be led to believe that boringly standard practices like revising talking points over email, and getting updates on court hearings, are actually proof of corruption. But they're not.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  And what don't we already know about Trump? Even if true, if this is serious journalism, why they keep printing she said he said? Wouldn't it be excellent time to print the stories of the alleged rape victims of Bill Clinton too? Since they publicly admit he and Hillary is a team? If you think media is not one sides, even if sided slightly more sane side, you're out of your mind.
  - jphillipsio 10y ago
    These stories were beaten to death in the 90's. Back then, I hoped that they would impeach Bill just so I wouldn't have to hear about it any more. I don't think you'll find many people that want to do it all over again.
- drumdance 10y ago
  > LEAKED I've not heard anywhere that they were leaked, which suggests a disgruntled insider. The US government claims that they were hacked, and apparently that information was communicate to both Trump and Clinton in their national security briefings. Assange has not been forthcoming about the source of the emails.
- grandalf 10y ago
  Not sure I agree. Is a conspiracy by top officials at the DNC to harm a party candidate during the primary a minor deal? To me this is corruption at close to the highest level. Yes, it's a private org, but one that is critical to the functioning of our democracy. Is a candidate making promises to wall street that directly contradict her campaign promises a minor deal? Well, we can cynically assume all pols are dishonest, or the press can help us simply hold all pols accountable for their promises. I'd like to see fewer promises made and more promises kept. It was frankly a bit shady that HRC refused to release the transcripts, and I think there is a newsworthy story detailing the interest groups she was courting and why they are so influential in American politics.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    The DNC Sanders emails were extremely widely covered when they came out earlier this year and led directly to a change in leadership at DNC. Are you trying to suggest those got ignored? I've looked through the Goldman transcripts, and maybe I'm stupid, but I didn't see her making any promises. If you've got a direct quote, lay it on me. I'm not holding my breath, though, since so far you only seem interested in vague concern-trolling.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      > led directly to a change in leadership at DNC. Yes, followed by the person who was forced to step down being immediately re-hired by the HRC campaign. What is troubling about it is what it suggests about HRC -- that she got cronies into powerful positions in the DNC, that they helped subvert the primary process in her favor, and that she re-hired the disgraced DNC leader, signaling to any other cronies that she'd have their back if they got caught, too. The issue is institutional corruption, and it should be the main story out of the leaked emails. Politics can get ugly, but the purpose of the primary is to vet the candidates that have pledged allegiance to the party by letting party members vote in the primary election. In my opinion, HRC should have been put on the spot to answer for why the corruption that benefitted her happened, and why she re-hired DWS the next day. I'm not aligned with either party so I don't care so much who the candidate is, but I do care about the quality of the institutions that are part of our democratic system. We should all care, because the institutions (and their lack of corruption) is more important than who wins any single election (primary or secondary). When you think about all the idealistic Sanders supporters who donated money and time only to have their trusted DNC leaders try to sabotage their preferred candidate, the amount of harm done to our democracy by this was substantial. Think of the cynicism and frustration it created, all so that HRC would be a few percent more likely to win the nomination, and win it in an unfair way. Politics is a long term game. Partisans like to tell us it's urgent and that we must act immediately (regardless of the costs) to impact the most important election in history. This fake urgency is the technique GWB used to sell the Iraq war. It's an effective but embarrassingly dishonest propaganda technique.
linkregister 10y ago
The NYT is the publication that originated the story about the HRC external email server during her tenure at the State Department. The NYT frequently publishes articles critical of Hillary Clinton. Here are several hundred: https://www.reddit.com/search?q=subreddit%3Athe_donald+site%3Anytimes.com https://www.reddit.com/search?q=subreddit%3Athe_donald+site%... I'm using this example as an internet community that curates information critical to Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party campaigns. In that list are several that discuss content within the email leaks in a fashion critical to Hillary Clinton. Publications should be permitted to publish stories critical of both major political parties.
- grandalf 10y ago
  Many of these are old and do not address the content of the emails. There are perhaps 100 significant stories that could have been written based on the information leaked in the past 10 days. We got zero. The paper has also declined to collaborate with Assange to release stories about many other leaks. The NYT is America's Pravda. By the establishment and for the establishment... the definition of conservative. To think of all those who undertook personal risk over the years to build a great news organization! Too much competition from buzzfeed seems to have left the paper toothless and officious. Historians will likely view the gutting of the adversarial, investigative press as the factor that accelerated our civilization's return to authoritarianism.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    I see two sentences of substance in your bizarre response. > Many of these are old and do not address the content of the emails. There are perhaps 100 significant stories that could have been written based on the information leaked in the past 10 days. We got zero. I found this after 1 second of internet searching: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-wikileaks.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/hillary-clinto.... > Too much competition from buzzfeed seems to have left the paper toothless and officious. Buzzfeed has a substantial investigative reporting arm; its depth has been lauded frequently on HN: https://www.buzzfeed.com/news https://www.buzzfeed.com/news
nostrebored 10y ago
Beyond that, the NYT actively culls comments that disagree with their political position. Even when this is not happening, they try to shape discourse with the NYT picks. Even when I do agree with their positions, it is disconcerting to feel like I am being spoonfed political ideology.
CreRecombinase 10y ago
This is a false equivalency. The job of the media is not to present the two sides of every story equally.

camiller 10y ago

Sorry but wasn't the NYT shown to be colluding with the DNC to stack the deck against Sanders in the emails wikileaks published from the DNC hack? https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-bernie-sanders-article-for-clinton-campaign-5156a43755ca#.lydfxtjyx https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-berni...

snowwrestler 10y ago
No. EDIT: for context, if you go read the actual emails, what you see are totally bog-standard comments of a PR team reacting to a story once it posted, and again when the NYT updated it, as the NYT (and other papers) often do.
- camiller 10y ago
  Yes, but they updated it in a fashion to downplay potential misuse of the JVF in Clinton's favor. Edit: for context "We were able to keep him from including more on the JVF, it has a mention in there, but between us and a conversation he had with Marc Elias he finally backed off from focusing too much on that."
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    That was in the initial version of the story. As DWS says right in the email, the update added comments from Longabaugh. This email chain is a total non-story. The NYTimes called the DNC for comment, and the DNC attempted to shape the story. That is basic PR 101. We know the Sanders campaign did the same thing, because the story includes confidential information from his campaign, and comments from his surrogates. We just don't have Wikileaks access to the emails from his campaign (thank goodness).

awacs 10y ago

I concur with this view. I don't necessarily think the Wikileaks are not valid, but from my point of view, Wikileaks lost all credibility being 100% anti-Hillary, with zero anti-Trump information released. Somehow I don't think the RNC would have much different internal e-mails floating around at this point. That being said, I read the Goldman transcripts and other things that were supposed to be so damaging, and they really weren't that bad, beyond any other typical politician. Is she corrupt, absolutely. Is there a giant media conspiracy (now including SNL) against Trump? Ridiculous. He makes his own wounds. In addition, even Mike Pence has now admitted Russia is disseminating information to Wikileaks. So we have a clear connection between Russia / Putin and Trump. I don't believe it's as far as many think with them working together, but clearly someone as thin skinned and easily manipulated as Trump would be a total win for Putin. We can talk about Hillary's collusion, Clinton Foundation corruptness and such, but how the Putin pro Trump position is not as relevant is beyond me, if not the deal breaker considering the state of Russia / American current affairs.

wmil 10y ago
The RNC was fairly openly anti-Trump during the primaries, there won't be any evidence of them cheating on his behalf. Also there's no real need to take anti-Trump info to Wikileaks. The NYT was willing to publish one of Trump's tax returns from the 90s and those are legally protected. You can take anti-trump documents to any major newspaper.
linkregister 10y ago
I don't think it's entirely fair to blame this imbalance on Wikileaks; they may not have received any information derogatory to the Trump campaign. Wikileaks' current agenda appears to be to disrupt Western governments through leaking damaging information. I don't see a clear preference for political parties; the Manning leaks were damaging to the Republican Bush administration. I believe that the most probable source of the DNC leaks is Russian government units, but not for the purposes of election manipulation. Here is an article that most credibly posits this theory: https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russian-spycraft-how-kremlin-hacked-its-way-into-a-crisis-55679 https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russian-spycraft-how-kre....

oh_sigh 10y ago

NYT tried to push their Trump sex assault stories, but the stories were just "They said that Trump did something bad many years ago", with no proof, no witnesses, no evidence at all, other than their word. And then some of the women show up on TV with their lawyer, Gloria Allred, who is in close connection with HRCs campaign(as attested by the Podesta wikileaks) and has vowed her support for HRC to win. And then there is strange behavior from some of the accusers, like begging Trump to visit their restaurant/business, which would be a strange thing to do to someone who sexually assaulted you(not impossible behavior, but all of these things add up)

natural219 10y ago

Let's say that, as a hypothetical, 1-2% of the population per year have been experiencing exactly what you describe as credibility-undermining behavior from major publications. If you are not one of those 1-2%, how would you know about it?

ta_donk_gt 10y ago

Behavior such as these from CNN: [1] and [2] has been par for the course for the mainstream media as far as I have seen this year. Scare, divert, suppress, collude, whatever it takes to avoid the public getting to the truth if it will hurt their candidate. I just can't understand how this does not scare people. How is this different from the state run media in third-world countries we used to laugh at as kids? It may be working out for your team _this_time_, but the same behavior will almost certainly be used against you in the future. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWKwEBIkYhI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWKwEBIkYhI [2] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205

hiringmanager 10y ago
I can say that the media took a sharp turn around 2000-2001 era, especially after 9/11. The rise of 24x7 news outlets and the internet (which has killed journalism in newspapers financially) turned it into basically a PR agency for the government and powerful interests. "Scare, divert, suppress, collude" have been tactics that have gone on at least for the past 16 years. In fact, I think they were going on in the 15 years before that as well, though they were less pronounced, less obvious and less extreme. The media has probably always been a bit of a propaganda organ... it's just that the voices were a lot more diverse. The really alarming thing we've seen this year is Google, Facebook and Reddit starting to use algorithms to suppress some voices and amplify others. Combine that with "Correct The Record" (the army of paid hillary shills who have taken over at least reddit) and the internet is no longer the alternative where you can have a reasonable discussion. Why participate when your opponent is most likely a hired troll?
- api 10y ago
  I wonder how much of Reddit is just paid troll armies battling other paid troll armies?
  - 4ad 10y ago
    Why single out reddit? I wonder the same about 4chan and hacker news.

droopybuns 10y ago

>> Any institution that regularly confuses editorializing for journalism losses its credibility. By these rules there are many institutions that are not trustworthy (e.g. Fox) but there are many institutions that are (the NYT). My counterpoint: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/technology/yahoo-data-breach-hacking.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/technology/yahoo-data-b... Anonymous quotes. Unsourced claims. Revisionist history designed to tear down one individual (Mayer) to protect another (Stamos)

feelix 10y ago

> what would undermine the credibility of an institution of journalism You missed out the most important thing which would undermine the credibility of an institution of journalism. And it is the the most common one which is the most heavily engaged in. And that is choosing not to report certain stories and facts, even though they are of great significance.