4 ms·

I think these are excellent guidelines. If Reuters adheres to them, they'll continue to rise above the other mainstream media outlets. I suspect they'll be un

I think these are excellent guidelines. If Reuters adheres to them, they'll continue to rise above the other mainstream media outlets. I suspect they'll be unlikely to come under fire from the current Administration, whose feud with the media seems to be concentrated on "info-tainment" organizations like CNN that for years now have eschewed factual reporting for titillation and talking heads.

BryantD 10y ago
We can probably dial that in a little more: Fox News is certainly no better than CNN as far as talking heads goes, but the Trump Administration isn't feuding with them. Trump is feuding with talking heads who don't advance his agenda.
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  No disagreement about Fox. But is the feud really because those media outlets aren't advancing his agenda? The tone from the press started with mockery during the primaries and advanced to hostility once Trump became the forerunner. Look at the election night coverage from most of the networks: it looked like a funeral, which is rather surprising given the supposed objectivity of these organizations. IMO the feud is about a lack of objectivity rather than a lack of full-throated support. Nobody should want a complicit, docile press: that's what we largely had for the last 8 years.
  - oculusthrift 10y ago
    "Last week, New York magazine reported that Trump’s feud with CNN has roots in his relationship with CNN President Jeff Zucker, a former NBC president who brought Trump's television show “The Apprentice” to the network. Trump, the magazine reported, has told White House staffers that he feels personally betrayed by Zucker and that Zucker should tilt CNN programming more favorably toward him because of their long relationship." http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      Yeah, well, if Trump thinks anybody should tilt coverage toward him because of a long relationship, that's kind of a problem. Trump wanted the office, now he's got it - all of it, including having to face the music from the press.
  - beat 10y ago
    I disagree. It's not about whether CNN and other outlets are "objective". It's about scapegoating an enemy. Beating on the "liberal media" has been a cartoon villain from the GOP ever since the rise of FOX News and right-wing talk radio two decades ago, but this is a new level. They can discourage even believing in facts, and focus supporters on "alt" media that isn't impeded by inconveniences like having to report the actual truth. CNN may be kinda dumb, but at least they have a bedrock of journalistic integrity. Heck, I've started crediting FOX as a "legitimate" news source, if only to counter arguments that the "liberal media" isn't covering whatever crazy fantasy is floating through the "alt-right" at the time. If even FOX isn't covering it, it's fake news, people! (And honestly, FOX has gotten a lot better over the past year or so.) This isn't about objectivity. It's about turning any journalistic outfit with a shred of integrity into an Enemy of the People. This sort of nonsense is exactly what makes Trump/Bannon different, and dangerous.
    - VLM 10y ago
      "CNN may be kinda dumb, but at least they have a bedrock of journalistic integrity." You seem to have missed the email leaks. They cooperate exclusively behind the scenes with the Democratic party to ensure the defeat of Republicans. They have the journalistic integrity of cold war era "Pravda".
      - beat 10y ago
        If that's the case, then they're not doing a very good job of it, huh?
        VLM 10y ago
        They seem to work really hard. Every obsolete / dead political movement in history (religion, too) was staffed primarily by honest and genuine true believers. I don't think they're lazy or stupid or unmotivated. They just hitched their carriage to a dead horse, that's all. People involved in current day ascendant political movements and modern religions like to think they're somehow different than the dead past, but sooner or later they find out the hard way they're not. (edited to add, in my study of history I've never found an aspect of human nature quite as cross cultural and universal as this, nothing, nothing comes close, not monotheism or the golden rule or dualism or progressivism, nothing so universally human)
  - BryantD 10y ago
    Their words, not mine: "We’re sending surrogates to places where we think it makes sense to promote our agenda."
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      Um, whose words? From what you said, I can't make out who you're talking about.
      - BryantD 10y ago
        That's a quote from a White House official who was unwilling to put his name on the record, sorry. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455
        AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Ah, I see. They, the White House, are not going to send "surrogates" (talking heads) to talk to the press where they don't feel like they're going to be fairly heard (for some definition of "fairly"). That's understandable, in a way, but it's also a very bad move. First, having to explain yourself to hostile questioners is part of what the White House is supposed to have to do, so that the public gets a more realistic view of whether their policies are sane than they would get from the White House alone. But second, if they think they're being unfairly treated by a biased media, not talking to that segment of the media is not going to make the divide any less...
  - wfo 10y ago
    How else would you expect the press to cover that event -- someone who has explicitly stated a plan to enact vengeance upon and hatred for the very idea of a free press receiving unstoppable and unchecked power? Nobody whose job or life depends on facts, transparency, freedom, an open civil society in the US was okay with the results of that election. They did their best but there's only so much you can do to pretend to be objective when something truly terrible happens and we all know it. Lawyers defend horrible people to the best of their ability because it's their job, but they sure aren't happy about it.
VLM 10y ago
As indicated in the DNC email hack, CNN and the washington post and some other former journalist organizations are no longer operating as journalist organizations and are simply self funded partisan propaganda "fake news" sites focused solely on obeying the DNC to elect the most Democrats as possible. Naturally relations are abrasive between the leader of a party in power and the propaganda arm of a political party out of power, how could it be otherwise? Those orgs are no longer journalists by their own choice; I'm not seeing a problem. I don't recall seeing many (any?) Reuters names in the DNC email hack. I don't recall an unusual amount of fake news coming from Reuters. I don't recall an unusual amount of friction between Trump and Reuters in general. AFAIK they are journalists operating as journalists doing the job of journalists and unless there are secret emails so far unreleased implying otherwise they should expect to continue acting as journalists. I don't see the point in the news release. AFAIK at this time Reuters is in the real news business whereas the friction is entirely happening with fake news businesses some of which formerly were journalists but are now purely focused on propaganda. It would be as pointless as Ford issuing a press release commenting on the latest FireFox build, they're not even in the same industry....

BryantD 10y ago

We can probably dial that in a little more: Fox News is certainly no better than CNN as far as talking heads goes, but the Trump Administration isn't feuding with them. Trump is feuding with talking heads who don't advance his agenda.

MrZongle2 10y ago
No disagreement about Fox. But is the feud really because those media outlets aren't advancing his agenda? The tone from the press started with mockery during the primaries and advanced to hostility once Trump became the forerunner. Look at the election night coverage from most of the networks: it looked like a funeral, which is rather surprising given the supposed objectivity of these organizations. IMO the feud is about a lack of objectivity rather than a lack of full-throated support. Nobody should want a complicit, docile press: that's what we largely had for the last 8 years.
- oculusthrift 10y ago
  "Last week, New York magazine reported that Trump’s feud with CNN has roots in his relationship with CNN President Jeff Zucker, a former NBC president who brought Trump's television show “The Apprentice” to the network. Trump, the magazine reported, has told White House staffers that he feels personally betrayed by Zucker and that Zucker should tilt CNN programming more favorably toward him because of their long relationship." http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Yeah, well, if Trump thinks anybody should tilt coverage toward him because of a long relationship, that's kind of a problem. Trump wanted the office, now he's got it - all of it, including having to face the music from the press.
- beat 10y ago
  I disagree. It's not about whether CNN and other outlets are "objective". It's about scapegoating an enemy. Beating on the "liberal media" has been a cartoon villain from the GOP ever since the rise of FOX News and right-wing talk radio two decades ago, but this is a new level. They can discourage even believing in facts, and focus supporters on "alt" media that isn't impeded by inconveniences like having to report the actual truth. CNN may be kinda dumb, but at least they have a bedrock of journalistic integrity. Heck, I've started crediting FOX as a "legitimate" news source, if only to counter arguments that the "liberal media" isn't covering whatever crazy fantasy is floating through the "alt-right" at the time. If even FOX isn't covering it, it's fake news, people! (And honestly, FOX has gotten a lot better over the past year or so.) This isn't about objectivity. It's about turning any journalistic outfit with a shred of integrity into an Enemy of the People. This sort of nonsense is exactly what makes Trump/Bannon different, and dangerous.
  - VLM 10y ago
    "CNN may be kinda dumb, but at least they have a bedrock of journalistic integrity." You seem to have missed the email leaks. They cooperate exclusively behind the scenes with the Democratic party to ensure the defeat of Republicans. They have the journalistic integrity of cold war era "Pravda".
    - beat 10y ago
      If that's the case, then they're not doing a very good job of it, huh?
      - VLM 10y ago
        They seem to work really hard. Every obsolete / dead political movement in history (religion, too) was staffed primarily by honest and genuine true believers. I don't think they're lazy or stupid or unmotivated. They just hitched their carriage to a dead horse, that's all. People involved in current day ascendant political movements and modern religions like to think they're somehow different than the dead past, but sooner or later they find out the hard way they're not. (edited to add, in my study of history I've never found an aspect of human nature quite as cross cultural and universal as this, nothing, nothing comes close, not monotheism or the golden rule or dualism or progressivism, nothing so universally human)
- BryantD 10y ago
  Their words, not mine: "We’re sending surrogates to places where we think it makes sense to promote our agenda."
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Um, whose words? From what you said, I can't make out who you're talking about.
    - BryantD 10y ago
      That's a quote from a White House official who was unwilling to put his name on the record, sorry. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-cnn-press-234455
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Ah, I see. They, the White House, are not going to send "surrogates" (talking heads) to talk to the press where they don't feel like they're going to be fairly heard (for some definition of "fairly"). That's understandable, in a way, but it's also a very bad move. First, having to explain yourself to hostile questioners is part of what the White House is supposed to have to do, so that the public gets a more realistic view of whether their policies are sane than they would get from the White House alone. But second, if they think they're being unfairly treated by a biased media, not talking to that segment of the media is not going to make the divide any less...
- wfo 10y ago
  How else would you expect the press to cover that event -- someone who has explicitly stated a plan to enact vengeance upon and hatred for the very idea of a free press receiving unstoppable and unchecked power? Nobody whose job or life depends on facts, transparency, freedom, an open civil society in the US was okay with the results of that election. They did their best but there's only so much you can do to pretend to be objective when something truly terrible happens and we all know it. Lawyers defend horrible people to the best of their ability because it's their job, but they sure aren't happy about it.

VLM 10y ago

As indicated in the DNC email hack, CNN and the washington post and some other former journalist organizations are no longer operating as journalist organizations and are simply self funded partisan propaganda "fake news" sites focused solely on obeying the DNC to elect the most Democrats as possible. Naturally relations are abrasive between the leader of a party in power and the propaganda arm of a political party out of power, how could it be otherwise? Those orgs are no longer journalists by their own choice; I'm not seeing a problem. I don't recall seeing many (any?) Reuters names in the DNC email hack. I don't recall an unusual amount of fake news coming from Reuters. I don't recall an unusual amount of friction between Trump and Reuters in general. AFAIK they are journalists operating as journalists doing the job of journalists and unless there are secret emails so far unreleased implying otherwise they should expect to continue acting as journalists. I don't see the point in the news release. AFAIK at this time Reuters is in the real news business whereas the friction is entirely happening with fake news businesses some of which formerly were journalists but are now purely focused on propaganda. It would be as pointless as Ford issuing a press release commenting on the latest FireFox build, they're not even in the same industry....