2 ms·

What they did wrong is they didn't actually report news, they just followed Trump and said what he's doing and fed the press releases given out, which we could

What they did wrong is they didn't actually report news, they just followed Trump and said what he's doing and fed the press releases given out, which we could have gotten ourselves anyway. They didn't use their army of reporters to travel to the rust belt and show us the ghost towns. They didn't talk to the people there and really show the country why people are voting for Trump. Instead they just laughed about the possibility of Trump winning the Primaries (people voting for Trump don't watch CNN they watch Fox News), laughed about the possibility of Sanders winning (he got extremely close with 0 name recognition despite all the dismissing, laughed about the possibility of Trump winning. They did their normal of prioritizing access to politicians in the future, and helping their advertising donors, instead of feeling passionate about showing the truth.

hga 10y ago
This goes beyond Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds' "Just think of the media as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense" and beyond Ben Rhodes' (who sold Obama's Iran policy), "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. They literally know nothing." They didn't, as you said, get outside of the bubbles created by the campaigns themselves, or the reality distortion fields AKA narratives they pushed for both candidates, and wear out any shoe leather talking to real people. And perhaps this was true for any side of the campaign? Of course, we have to factor in that anything contrary to those narratives, i.e. anything they'd have discovered that would be vaguely interesting, would have been spiked at best, see this testimony from one of our own: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12928615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12928615 Given that, would they have even gotten authority or budget to get out there? So maybe we shouldn't be blaming the reporters, except that they continue to play this lazy, if not intellectually corrupt game.

hga 10y ago

This goes beyond Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds' "Just think of the media as Democrat operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense" and beyond Ben Rhodes' (who sold Obama's Iran policy), "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. They literally know nothing." They didn't, as you said, get outside of the bubbles created by the campaigns themselves, or the reality distortion fields AKA narratives they pushed for both candidates, and wear out any shoe leather talking to real people. And perhaps this was true for any side of the campaign? Of course, we have to factor in that anything contrary to those narratives, i.e. anything they'd have discovered that would be vaguely interesting, would have been spiked at best, see this testimony from one of our own: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12928615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12928615 Given that, would they have even gotten authority or budget to get out there? So maybe we shouldn't be blaming the reporters, except that they continue to play this lazy, if not intellectually corrupt game.