4 ms·

That is because the ADL withdrew their statement of Bannon [1], again not reported by MSM even though MSM reported the original ADL statement. Proves my point

That is because the ADL withdrew their statement of Bannon [1], again not reported by MSM even though MSM reported the original ADL statement. Proves my point that you cannot rely on MSM to give you newsworthy information. [1] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/17/bannon-breitbart-anti-defamation-league-backs-down/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/17/bannon-br...

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
So let's say you're an assignment editor at NYT or WaPo. A presser crosses your desk: "ADL walks back earlier inflammatory rhetoric about Steve Bannon". You immediately toss it to your politics editor, who prioritizes it below the vast cornucopia of election shit happening in the mid-November cycle because nobody cares except Steve Bannon fans. Appeal is important, and "that thing they said, they don't say it any more" is not really a story; it's an update on the "that thing they said" story, of course. Before, we'd call this newsworthiness. Now we call it a vast MSM conspiracy to suppress coverage of an entire spectrum of people. It's weird that the kind of person who reads Hacker News and ostensibly understands creating products for a target market would then look at decisions such as these and not see them as understanding broad audience appeal. The Hill, Politico, Breitbart, all mastheads that cater to deep politics, all ran it. It's cool to see a narrative be created that broad appeal mastheads not running something is an indictment of "mainstream media" (the clue is in the name!) simply because the guy you like is not getting the attention you want. And then someone links the MSM running the very story that started you down this path (on CNN!) and you ignore it and continue peddling your version of events. The flaw in MSM is that there simply isn't enough time in the day to run everything, and every time I see commentary like this around a specific event, the math on newsworthiness immediately makes sense to me because I've been an assignment editor. But unfortunately it leaves an opening for your side to say "see! the terrible left is ignoring us!" and it sounds like a legitimate gripe to a lot of people.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago

So let's say you're an assignment editor at NYT or WaPo. A presser crosses your desk: "ADL walks back earlier inflammatory rhetoric about Steve Bannon". You immediately toss it to your politics editor, who prioritizes it below the vast cornucopia of election shit happening in the mid-November cycle because nobody cares except Steve Bannon fans. Appeal is important, and "that thing they said, they don't say it any more" is not really a story; it's an update on the "that thing they said" story, of course. Before, we'd call this newsworthiness. Now we call it a vast MSM conspiracy to suppress coverage of an entire spectrum of people. It's weird that the kind of person who reads Hacker News and ostensibly understands creating products for a target market would then look at decisions such as these and not see them as understanding broad audience appeal. The Hill, Politico, Breitbart, all mastheads that cater to deep politics, all ran it. It's cool to see a narrative be created that broad appeal mastheads not running something is an indictment of "mainstream media" (the clue is in the name!) simply because the guy you like is not getting the attention you want. And then someone links the MSM running the very story that started you down this path (on CNN!) and you ignore it and continue peddling your version of events. The flaw in MSM is that there simply isn't enough time in the day to run everything, and every time I see commentary like this around a specific event, the math on newsworthiness immediately makes sense to me because I've been an assignment editor. But unfortunately it leaves an opening for your side to say "see! the terrible left is ignoring us!" and it sounds like a legitimate gripe to a lot of people.