4 ms·

>One presidential candidate The other presidential candidate has been shown to be colluding multiple times with various media outlets, while they don't fairly

>One presidential candidate The other presidential candidate has been shown to be colluding multiple times with various media outlets, while they don't fairly report on that collusion. I think things like that erode people's trust in media.

karmelapple 10y ago
> The other presidential candidate has been shown to be colluding multiple times with various media outlets That appears to be true, too - I agree! So we've identified two causes of eroding media trust. I'd be curious if any research has been done on what erodes trust more: authority criticizing it, muckraking journalism (no pejorative implied there - muckraking is a good thing to expose corruption!), or other things yet. The huge amount of fake news in people's social media has certainly had some kind of impact on people's trust of news sources in general, too. I am most interested in how to combat that; simply doing good work won't necessarily bring a media outlet the attention it needs to stay in business these days. Incentives in journalism are currently pretty out of whack.
croon 10y ago
> The other presidential candidate has been shown to be colluding multiple times with various media outlets Source? Because that line is a prime example of the problem. The only thing the emails showed were checking stories for accuracies with sources, and checking what off-the-record information could be put on-the-record. Which is the ethical discourse.
- karmelapple 10y ago
  I believe the prime example is CNN giving questions to the Clinton campaign ahead of a debate, which is certain unethical. http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resignation/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resi... https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/31/with-question-leaking-cnn-has-a-scandal-on-its-hands/?utm_term=.194755078c28 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/31/donna-brazile-clinton-cnn-debate-wikileaks/93058560/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/... Multiple outlets, though - I don't know about that. As pointed out, checking for accuracy and talking to a campaign is certainly not off-limit.
  - croon 10y ago
    Yes, while that looks really bad, it's: 1) Uncertain at what level it was when the person involved got the boot. 2) Only one actor, which I'd rank fairly low compared to Guardian, Atlantic, Foreign Policy, NYT, WP, etc. I read your links, and I agree with them, but it's still only what it is, uncertain what it means... there's definitely no proof of a conspiracy, regardless if there is one or not. The seed of one of these maybe-stories, flaring into a craze of "every news channel is evil, burn them all" is unhelpful at best, damaging to democracy at worst.
- ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
  Wrong. They showed much much more than just checking for accuracy. Several "journalists" asked specifically for advice on how they should characterize their articles. They were part of conversations with campaign staffers on what angles to choose to pursue for their articles. Worst of all, they directly passed debate and other interview questions in advance to a certain candidate. The media, and frankly those who buy into the "it's all because of fake news" nonsense, ignores this evidence at their own peril.
  - croon 10y ago
    I think you're confused by the meaning of "Source?". Or you're just doing meta trolling reinforcing the point of the OP.
    - ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
      Here's but a few of the many "sources" my friend: Lisa Lerer (AP) writing an article about Clinton's "Wall Street problem" and "she is asking if we wish to characterize her remarks in any way." /podesta-emails/emailid/36373 DNC & Clinton campaign staff being given the opportunity to provide CNN with questions to ask Trump in an upcoming interview. /dnc-emails/emailid/27526 Mark Leibovich (NYT) allowing clinton campaign to edit his article - they're literally picking what to include and what not to include in the article. /podesta-emails/emailid/4213 DNC staff saying Kenneth Vogel (Politico) gave her his story in advance (per an agreement?), and that if there's anything the Clinton campaign doesn't like, she can "push back". /dnc-emails/emailid/10808 Campaign staff discussing how to push back against successful Sanders attack of showing Clinton as being the "establishment" candidate. The strategy involves getting bloggers and columnists to "write about this from a racial justice and reproductive rights perspective, including a few people who joined us on a call to talk about the "Bernie Backlash" that was unfolding even before his remarks last night—current list is Elianne Ramos [HuffPo], Jessica Valenti [Guardian] (who is writing a column on this as we speak), Jamil Smith [MTV/Viacom], Sady Doyle [Guardian, The Atlantic], Aminatou Sow, Gabe Ortiz [WaPo, Univision], and others". /podesta-emails/emailid/56243 And of course we can't forget Donna Brazile getting caught red handed giving debate questions in advance... Of course it would be foolish to expect corrupt media cronies, who socialize and schmooze regularly with a certain candidate's campaign staff, to expose their own corruption.

karmelapple 10y ago

> The other presidential candidate has been shown to be colluding multiple times with various media outlets That appears to be true, too - I agree! So we've identified two causes of eroding media trust. I'd be curious if any research has been done on what erodes trust more: authority criticizing it, muckraking journalism (no pejorative implied there - muckraking is a good thing to expose corruption!), or other things yet. The huge amount of fake news in people's social media has certainly had some kind of impact on people's trust of news sources in general, too. I am most interested in how to combat that; simply doing good work won't necessarily bring a media outlet the attention it needs to stay in business these days. Incentives in journalism are currently pretty out of whack.

croon 10y ago

> The other presidential candidate has been shown to be colluding multiple times with various media outlets Source? Because that line is a prime example of the problem. The only thing the emails showed were checking stories for accuracies with sources, and checking what off-the-record information could be put on-the-record. Which is the ethical discourse.

karmelapple 10y ago
I believe the prime example is CNN giving questions to the Clinton campaign ahead of a debate, which is certain unethical. http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resignation/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resi... https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/31/with-question-leaking-cnn-has-a-scandal-on-its-hands/?utm_term=.194755078c28 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/31/donna-brazile-clinton-cnn-debate-wikileaks/93058560/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/... Multiple outlets, though - I don't know about that. As pointed out, checking for accuracy and talking to a campaign is certainly not off-limit.
- croon 10y ago
  Yes, while that looks really bad, it's: 1) Uncertain at what level it was when the person involved got the boot. 2) Only one actor, which I'd rank fairly low compared to Guardian, Atlantic, Foreign Policy, NYT, WP, etc. I read your links, and I agree with them, but it's still only what it is, uncertain what it means... there's definitely no proof of a conspiracy, regardless if there is one or not. The seed of one of these maybe-stories, flaring into a craze of "every news channel is evil, burn them all" is unhelpful at best, damaging to democracy at worst.
ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
Wrong. They showed much much more than just checking for accuracy. Several "journalists" asked specifically for advice on how they should characterize their articles. They were part of conversations with campaign staffers on what angles to choose to pursue for their articles. Worst of all, they directly passed debate and other interview questions in advance to a certain candidate. The media, and frankly those who buy into the "it's all because of fake news" nonsense, ignores this evidence at their own peril.
- croon 10y ago
  I think you're confused by the meaning of "Source?". Or you're just doing meta trolling reinforcing the point of the OP.
  - ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
    Here's but a few of the many "sources" my friend: Lisa Lerer (AP) writing an article about Clinton's "Wall Street problem" and "she is asking if we wish to characterize her remarks in any way." /podesta-emails/emailid/36373 DNC & Clinton campaign staff being given the opportunity to provide CNN with questions to ask Trump in an upcoming interview. /dnc-emails/emailid/27526 Mark Leibovich (NYT) allowing clinton campaign to edit his article - they're literally picking what to include and what not to include in the article. /podesta-emails/emailid/4213 DNC staff saying Kenneth Vogel (Politico) gave her his story in advance (per an agreement?), and that if there's anything the Clinton campaign doesn't like, she can "push back". /dnc-emails/emailid/10808 Campaign staff discussing how to push back against successful Sanders attack of showing Clinton as being the "establishment" candidate. The strategy involves getting bloggers and columnists to "write about this from a racial justice and reproductive rights perspective, including a few people who joined us on a call to talk about the "Bernie Backlash" that was unfolding even before his remarks last night—current list is Elianne Ramos [HuffPo], Jessica Valenti [Guardian] (who is writing a column on this as we speak), Jamil Smith [MTV/Viacom], Sady Doyle [Guardian, The Atlantic], Aminatou Sow, Gabe Ortiz [WaPo, Univision], and others". /podesta-emails/emailid/56243 And of course we can't forget Donna Brazile getting caught red handed giving debate questions in advance... Of course it would be foolish to expect corrupt media cronies, who socialize and schmooze regularly with a certain candidate's campaign staff, to expose their own corruption.