6 ms·

Targeting journalists is horrible. Any government that is doing these things does not represent we the people. Journalists are our loudest narrators - meaning

Targeting journalists is horrible. Any government that is doing these things does not represent we the people. Journalists are our loudest narrators - meaning - the government appears to really wish to control our narrative.

slowmovintarget 8y ago
> Journalists are our loudest narrators - meaning - the government appears to really wish to control our narrative. When the narration is coordinated with the DNC, this makes me think they aren't doing their job any more. But yes, it wasn't acceptable when the Obama administration was wire tapping Fox News reporters, and it's not acceptable now.
- falcrist 8y ago
  ABC, NBC, CBS, WSJ, NYT, Chicago Tribune, New York Post, BBC, PBS, NPR, AP, Reuters, etc... All of these (or even the majority) are controlled by the DNC? I don't think so, and if that isn't on the nose enough for you, I'll just say that I think you're talking about 24 hour news networks... CNN specifically. Yea, they endorsed Clinton as hard as they could. So STOP WATCHING THEM, and stop equating journalism to the likes of CNN and Fox. Watch and/or read something else. You speak English and live in a country with a protected press (which is why this article is worrying in the first place). There are literally thousands of newspapers, magazines, television news shows (and networks) out there. Pick a couple of reputable ones (including at least one that challenges your views) and stop watching piffle.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >All of these (or even the majority) are controlled by the DNC? To play devils advocate, yes they are (to varying degrees), in the same way that college campuses are "controlled" by the DNC. >and stop equating journalism to the likes of CNN and Fox Kinda funny how far we've come. CNN used to be the impartial one.
    - falcrist 8y ago
      The DNC may want to control the news, but they don't have anywhere near that kind of power. The outlets I listed span across the entire anglosphere. As far as CNN... they saw what Fox was doing on the right and realized partisan pandering is more lucrative than impartial reporting. I honestly think that's likely to become worse over time.
    - tokai 8y ago
      It is pretty disingenuous to compare correlating political opinions to being "controlled".
  - ilbesilncd 8y ago
    It is rather difficult to engage with people on this issue, I believe most people don't actually read anything beyond their own partisan echo chmabers. https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... Go ahead and compare your list of 'news' organization with the leaks from podesta s emails.
    - falcrist 8y ago
      OK. Let's take the names from this article and assume these people are controlled by the DNC rather than just friendly to the Clinton campaign. Let us further assume that their employers are also controlled by the DNC. You can strike ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, and NPR off of my list. CNN and Fox also have employees named in the article. So... That's still not half. And the assumptions made at the beginning are beyond spurious. Now, I don't comment much here, and I don't know how moderators look on having loosely related conversations in the comments, so I'm probably not going to continue this discussion... But I stand by my point.
      - slowmovintarget 8y ago
        You keep using the word "control". That's a strawman argument.
  - slowmovintarget 8y ago
    I didn't say "controlled" I said "coordinated with" implying a partnership. We know from the Clinton and Podesta e-mail leaks (remember their content?!? it was kind of important) that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NYT, Bloomberg, and Politico all had "journalists" amenable to planting or slanting stories. These weren't just op-ed pieces either.
    - falcrist 8y ago
      Having friendly journalists in a news organization doesn't imply you control or even have a partnership with that news organization.
      - oh_sigh 8y ago
        If your friendship with a journalist affects their reporting on issues, or what kind of slant they put on a story, then they are shitty journalists.
        falcrist 8y ago
        "friendly" in this context means "has similar politics". That's generally what the article was pointing out with the off record meetings with the Clinton and McCain campaigns. The article talks about the Clinton campaign's attempt to influence these journalists, but not the extent to which they were influenced.
      - slowmovintarget 8y ago
        This isn't a case of "sure I'm buddies with that DNC guy... shrug". This is a case of journalists adjusting language to fit DNC talking points, journalists omitting components of stories after checking with DNC operatives for approval/disapproval. These journalists compromised the work they were doing in order to further political concerns of the DNC. That confirms partnership, no implying or inferring needed. FWIW: I still never said "control". It is certainly easy to argue the DNC doesn't control the media. The problem is that such control is unnecessary as many journalists were and continue to be willing partners in turning news stories into one-sided political pieces, while be unwilling to label such work editorial. i.e. "Not doing their jobs."
  - falcrist 8y ago
    I found the commenting rules, but I don't see a way to edit my comment, so the caps emphasis will need to remain at least until I get home and open a proper browser. My apologies.
rapsey 8y ago
I am marvelling at your naivete
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Was any statement in parent comment incorrect?
  - rapsey 8y ago
    If it was incorrect I would say so. It is naive because it can only come from an idealistic worldview that has nothing to do with reality. > Any government that is doing these things does not represent we the people. It barely ever did and it certainly does not now. > the government appears to really wish to control our narrative. As if there ever existed one that did not want to.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      My reading is that of a response to that "idealistic worldview" (not actually idealistic, but rather cynical enough to pretend so). People say stupid shit like "elections mean that the government is controlled by the people" all the time, even here on HN where many people are fairly intelligent and also mostly honest. Clear evidence to the contrary doesn't always make it through the media filter, so I don't see the harm in highlighting that evidence.

slowmovintarget 8y ago

> Journalists are our loudest narrators - meaning - the government appears to really wish to control our narrative. When the narration is coordinated with the DNC, this makes me think they aren't doing their job any more. But yes, it wasn't acceptable when the Obama administration was wire tapping Fox News reporters, and it's not acceptable now.

falcrist 8y ago
ABC, NBC, CBS, WSJ, NYT, Chicago Tribune, New York Post, BBC, PBS, NPR, AP, Reuters, etc... All of these (or even the majority) are controlled by the DNC? I don't think so, and if that isn't on the nose enough for you, I'll just say that I think you're talking about 24 hour news networks... CNN specifically. Yea, they endorsed Clinton as hard as they could. So STOP WATCHING THEM, and stop equating journalism to the likes of CNN and Fox. Watch and/or read something else. You speak English and live in a country with a protected press (which is why this article is worrying in the first place). There are literally thousands of newspapers, magazines, television news shows (and networks) out there. Pick a couple of reputable ones (including at least one that challenges your views) and stop watching piffle.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >All of these (or even the majority) are controlled by the DNC? To play devils advocate, yes they are (to varying degrees), in the same way that college campuses are "controlled" by the DNC. >and stop equating journalism to the likes of CNN and Fox Kinda funny how far we've come. CNN used to be the impartial one.
  - falcrist 8y ago
    The DNC may want to control the news, but they don't have anywhere near that kind of power. The outlets I listed span across the entire anglosphere. As far as CNN... they saw what Fox was doing on the right and realized partisan pandering is more lucrative than impartial reporting. I honestly think that's likely to become worse over time.
  - tokai 8y ago
    It is pretty disingenuous to compare correlating political opinions to being "controlled".
- ilbesilncd 8y ago
  It is rather difficult to engage with people on this issue, I believe most people don't actually read anything beyond their own partisan echo chmabers. https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... Go ahead and compare your list of 'news' organization with the leaks from podesta s emails.
  - falcrist 8y ago
    OK. Let's take the names from this article and assume these people are controlled by the DNC rather than just friendly to the Clinton campaign. Let us further assume that their employers are also controlled by the DNC. You can strike ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, and NPR off of my list. CNN and Fox also have employees named in the article. So... That's still not half. And the assumptions made at the beginning are beyond spurious. Now, I don't comment much here, and I don't know how moderators look on having loosely related conversations in the comments, so I'm probably not going to continue this discussion... But I stand by my point.
    - slowmovintarget 8y ago
      You keep using the word "control". That's a strawman argument.
- slowmovintarget 8y ago
  I didn't say "controlled" I said "coordinated with" implying a partnership. We know from the Clinton and Podesta e-mail leaks (remember their content?!? it was kind of important) that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NYT, Bloomberg, and Politico all had "journalists" amenable to planting or slanting stories. These weren't just op-ed pieces either.
  - falcrist 8y ago
    Having friendly journalists in a news organization doesn't imply you control or even have a partnership with that news organization.
    - oh_sigh 8y ago
      If your friendship with a journalist affects their reporting on issues, or what kind of slant they put on a story, then they are shitty journalists.
      - falcrist 8y ago
        "friendly" in this context means "has similar politics". That's generally what the article was pointing out with the off record meetings with the Clinton and McCain campaigns. The article talks about the Clinton campaign's attempt to influence these journalists, but not the extent to which they were influenced.
    - slowmovintarget 8y ago
      This isn't a case of "sure I'm buddies with that DNC guy... shrug". This is a case of journalists adjusting language to fit DNC talking points, journalists omitting components of stories after checking with DNC operatives for approval/disapproval. These journalists compromised the work they were doing in order to further political concerns of the DNC. That confirms partnership, no implying or inferring needed. FWIW: I still never said "control". It is certainly easy to argue the DNC doesn't control the media. The problem is that such control is unnecessary as many journalists were and continue to be willing partners in turning news stories into one-sided political pieces, while be unwilling to label such work editorial. i.e. "Not doing their jobs."
- falcrist 8y ago
  I found the commenting rules, but I don't see a way to edit my comment, so the caps emphasis will need to remain at least until I get home and open a proper browser. My apologies.

rapsey 8y ago

I am marvelling at your naivete

jessaustin 8y ago
Was any statement in parent comment incorrect?
- rapsey 8y ago
  If it was incorrect I would say so. It is naive because it can only come from an idealistic worldview that has nothing to do with reality. > Any government that is doing these things does not represent we the people. It barely ever did and it certainly does not now. > the government appears to really wish to control our narrative. As if there ever existed one that did not want to.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    My reading is that of a response to that "idealistic worldview" (not actually idealistic, but rather cynical enough to pretend so). People say stupid shit like "elections mean that the government is controlled by the people" all the time, even here on HN where many people are fairly intelligent and also mostly honest. Clear evidence to the contrary doesn't always make it through the media filter, so I don't see the harm in highlighting that evidence.