5 ms·

You and I must understand entirely different things when we read the phrase "premeditated collusion with the media." Those media organizations and those journa

You and I must understand entirely different things when we read the phrase "premeditated collusion with the media." Those media organizations and those journalists may have editorial and personal opinions on who they would prefer to win the election, but there's one thing they care more about than any of those preferences: access. The idea that the press wouldn't or shouldn't care about vacuuming up every talking point that a campaign is willing to spit out, no matter how obviously-canned it is, is to fundamentally misunderstand the operations of the 24 hour news cycle. This isn't happening because journos care about Hillary Clinton. This is an alignment of the incentives of politicians and journalists that ultimately reduces transparency and harms public discourse. The fact that the same thing likely isn't happening with the Trump campaign says more about the peculiarities of that campaign than it says anything about the same media companies' willingness to play the same game of ball with Generic Q. Republican.

pdx 10y ago
Why don't you debate this? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-17/politicos-chief-political-correspondent-admits-i-have-become-hack http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-17/politicos-chief-pol... Glenn Thrush, Politco's Chief Political Correspondent, decided to make it crystal clear in the following email to Podesta back in April 2015 in which he admits that he has "become a hack." The email below from Thrush was sent to get guidance related to an article he published the very next day entitled "Hillary's Big-Money Dilemma." ============= Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u Please don't share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything
- spaceheeder 10y ago
  This isn't disproving my thesis that people on political beats sacrifice impartiality and independence on the altar of access.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    But how is that a defense? Surely by that token you have no complaints about anything in the world. Just because a person does something unethical for a reward doesn't mean their actions are justified, just rational. The whole purpose the press existence is to be an independent check on government and to pose to politicians the questions that the electorate cares about. edit: Just to be clear, nobody (or nearly so) finds your claim controversial or new. It's flaw isn't that it's incorrect, it's that it isn't useful*.
    - spaceheeder 10y ago
      It's not a defense, but it's not a distinction without a difference. If the problem is collusion on behalf of a particular ideology then the solution is different than if it's a problem caused by current models for monetization of news media being driven by short term consumption habits and an attendant compulsion on the part of journalists to get something, anything, new before their peers do even if it's grade F horse shit and they had to sell out to get it. The rhetoric I was replying to implied that the politicians and the journalists are on the same team because they have the same goals. That's not the case. I think keeping that in mind is plenty useful.
      - pdx 10y ago
        I think I can disprove your premise right here. Of course, as The Center for Public Integrity [1] recently pointed out, "journalists" aren't just making "in-kind" contributions to the Clinton campaign, they're donating real cash as well. In fact, according the their review of political contributions made by people working in various media outlets, 96% were found to go to Hillary while only 4% accrued to the benefit of the Trump campaign. [1] https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists...
        spaceheeder 10y ago
        I'm not stipulating any of my claims on the lack of lopsidedness in the editorial positions of the journalists in question. A Really Big Number doesn't change what they care about more: being on the same team as the Democrats, or their drip-feeds from campaigns.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
r_smart 10y ago
>You and I must understand entirely different things when we read the phrase "premeditated collusion with the media." Agreed. >Those media organizations and those journalists may have editorial and personal opinions on who they would prefer to win the election, but there's one thing they care more about than any of those preferences: access. The idea that the press wouldn't or shouldn't care about vacuuming up every talking point that a campaign is willing to spit out, no matter how obviously-canned it is, is to fundamentally misunderstand the operations of the 24 hour news cycle. I was trained as a journalist before I became an engineer. I'd argue I understand this stuff better than most. Perhaps I had the benefit of a journalism program that was better than it had any right to be, but we had ethics drilled into us pretty heavily. I can assure you the things in those emails between the press and the Clinton campaign are shameful on a journalistic ethics front. Further, if you want to buy into the philosophy behind the press and why it's given so much leeway in American law, then their fundamental role is to serve as the fourth estate. It's supposed to be the role of the press to take an adversarial stance to government and hold them accountable. Clearly this doesn't happen much, but worse still, the Podesta emails reveal that they're actively facilitating the goals of a presidential nominee. That's horrible. If you want an off-topic thing to look into for this, look up Amber Lyons. I had her in the 'maybe she's credible' pile until this came out. Now she's in the 'There's something to her claims' pile. >the peculiarities of that campaign than it says anything about the same media companies' willingness to play the same game of ball with Generic Q. Republican. Most news organizations are staffed with people who lean fairly heavily to the left. It sounds like you might be surprised to find out just how much. It used to be the case, and was what I was taught, that you fought your bias as much as possible, did your best to avoid editorializing and didn't let yourself just become a mouth piece. There's a reason why someone picks up the New York Times rather than combing through the press releases from the Clinton & Trump campaigns. Obviously Fox News is the notable dissenter in providing this kind of service to Republican candidates. Still, if you run the numbers it's something like 80% / 20%. Overall, the thing that has been pretty evident to me during this campaign, even before the Podesta leaks, is that the bulk of the press has decided to burn their credibility in promoting Clinton. This even goes back to when she was campaigning against Sanders for the nomination, though to a lesser extent. I think the moment something smelled off to me was when she won the six coin tosses in Iowa (?) to begin the primaries and I didn't see many eyebrows raised in the reporting I looked at. Maybe I missed it, but since then They've held to a pretty consistent pattern of burning bridges to protect her.

pdx 10y ago

Why don't you debate this? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-17/politicos-chief-political-correspondent-admits-i-have-become-hack http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-17/politicos-chief-pol... Glenn Thrush, Politco's Chief Political Correspondent, decided to make it crystal clear in the following email to Podesta back in April 2015 in which he admits that he has "become a hack." The email below from Thrush was sent to get guidance related to an article he published the very next day entitled "Hillary's Big-Money Dilemma." ============= Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u Please don't share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything

spaceheeder 10y ago
This isn't disproving my thesis that people on political beats sacrifice impartiality and independence on the altar of access.
- r_smart 10y ago
  But how is that a defense? Surely by that token you have no complaints about anything in the world. Just because a person does something unethical for a reward doesn't mean their actions are justified, just rational. The whole purpose the press existence is to be an independent check on government and to pose to politicians the questions that the electorate cares about. edit: Just to be clear, nobody (or nearly so) finds your claim controversial or new. It's flaw isn't that it's incorrect, it's that it isn't useful*.
  - spaceheeder 10y ago
    It's not a defense, but it's not a distinction without a difference. If the problem is collusion on behalf of a particular ideology then the solution is different than if it's a problem caused by current models for monetization of news media being driven by short term consumption habits and an attendant compulsion on the part of journalists to get something, anything, new before their peers do even if it's grade F horse shit and they had to sell out to get it. The rhetoric I was replying to implied that the politicians and the journalists are on the same team because they have the same goals. That's not the case. I think keeping that in mind is plenty useful.
    - pdx 10y ago
      I think I can disprove your premise right here. Of course, as The Center for Public Integrity [1] recently pointed out, "journalists" aren't just making "in-kind" contributions to the Clinton campaign, they're donating real cash as well. In fact, according the their review of political contributions made by people working in various media outlets, 96% were found to go to Hillary while only 4% accrued to the benefit of the Trump campaign. [1] https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists...
      - spaceheeder 10y ago
        I'm not stipulating any of my claims on the lack of lopsidedness in the editorial positions of the journalists in question. A Really Big Number doesn't change what they care about more: being on the same team as the Democrats, or their drip-feeds from campaigns.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

r_smart 10y ago

>You and I must understand entirely different things when we read the phrase "premeditated collusion with the media." Agreed. >Those media organizations and those journalists may have editorial and personal opinions on who they would prefer to win the election, but there's one thing they care more about than any of those preferences: access. The idea that the press wouldn't or shouldn't care about vacuuming up every talking point that a campaign is willing to spit out, no matter how obviously-canned it is, is to fundamentally misunderstand the operations of the 24 hour news cycle. I was trained as a journalist before I became an engineer. I'd argue I understand this stuff better than most. Perhaps I had the benefit of a journalism program that was better than it had any right to be, but we had ethics drilled into us pretty heavily. I can assure you the things in those emails between the press and the Clinton campaign are shameful on a journalistic ethics front. Further, if you want to buy into the philosophy behind the press and why it's given so much leeway in American law, then their fundamental role is to serve as the fourth estate. It's supposed to be the role of the press to take an adversarial stance to government and hold them accountable. Clearly this doesn't happen much, but worse still, the Podesta emails reveal that they're actively facilitating the goals of a presidential nominee. That's horrible. If you want an off-topic thing to look into for this, look up Amber Lyons. I had her in the 'maybe she's credible' pile until this came out. Now she's in the 'There's something to her claims' pile. >the peculiarities of that campaign than it says anything about the same media companies' willingness to play the same game of ball with Generic Q. Republican. Most news organizations are staffed with people who lean fairly heavily to the left. It sounds like you might be surprised to find out just how much. It used to be the case, and was what I was taught, that you fought your bias as much as possible, did your best to avoid editorializing and didn't let yourself just become a mouth piece. There's a reason why someone picks up the New York Times rather than combing through the press releases from the Clinton & Trump campaigns. Obviously Fox News is the notable dissenter in providing this kind of service to Republican candidates. Still, if you run the numbers it's something like 80% / 20%. Overall, the thing that has been pretty evident to me during this campaign, even before the Podesta leaks, is that the bulk of the press has decided to burn their credibility in promoting Clinton. This even goes back to when she was campaigning against Sanders for the nomination, though to a lesser extent. I think the moment something smelled off to me was when she won the six coin tosses in Iowa (?) to begin the primaries and I didn't see many eyebrows raised in the reporting I looked at. Maybe I missed it, but since then They've held to a pretty consistent pattern of burning bridges to protect her.