6 ms·

It's much more rare though and it's almost entirely absent when looking at political coverage. Two journalists I can think of off the top of my head who have ac

It's much more rare though and it's almost entirely absent when looking at political coverage. Two journalists I can think of off the top of my head who have acted with outstanding integrity in recent years are Ronan Farrow and Julie K. Brown (broke the Weinstein and Epstein stories respectively). Part of what makes their journalism so strong is that they had to fight the entire industry to get their stories out. Political coverage is a nightmare though. Just yesterday George Stephanopoulos was caught on camera acting in an extremely partisan manner [1]. This happens on both sides of the isle regularly at this point (the White House itself is hardly faultless). It's only ratcheted up since 2016 where it seems the press took it up themselves to "save" us, where the definition of save seems to be: push their own political opinions. 1. https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1220758756071497728 https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1220758756071497728

macspoofing 7y ago
>Just yesterday George Stephanopoulos was caught on camera acting in an extremely partisan manner [1] To be fair, Stephanopoulos was a Democratic operative for years before transitioning to media. Why would you expect him to not be partisan?
- proximitysauce 7y ago
  I wouldn't but I also wouldn't expect a political operative to become the chief anchor and political correspondent of a major network.
  - aNoob7000 7y ago
    The problem I see is that no one can agree on what is right or the truth any longer. What one side considers the truth might not be the same for the other, look no further than the impeachment proceedings. I'm amazed that we've reached a point in the USA where we can't agree on some simple truths anymore.
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      >I'm am amazed that we've reached a point the in the USA where we can't agree on some simple truths anymore. I'm curious. Can you give one or two examples of the 'simple truths' that we can't agree on anymore? >What one side considers the truth might not be the same for the other, look no further than the impeachment proceedings. The impeachment proceedings are interesting examples because I truly believe that objectively, even if the facts are as stated by the Democrats, it would be a gross abuse to remove Trump from office for that. It's bonkers. Trump's conduct, at best, warrants a Congressional censure. But I take your point one two sides looking at the same event but interpreting it vastly differently. The Kavanaugh nomination was the same way, as well as coverage around Covington kids (could not believe as it was happening that news reports would profile children in the way they did).
      - Frondo 7y ago
        One simple truth in dispute is that vaccines save lives and do not cause autism.
        aNoob7000 7y ago
        Thanks that's a perfect example.
        pbourke 7y ago
        See also “anthropogenic climate change is real”
      - jariel 7y ago
        "I'm curious. Can you give one or two examples of the 'simple truths' that we can't agree on anymore?" "Should Trump be impeached for leveraging military aid to require an investigation into local companies in a nation that was ostensibly interfering in American politics, when the target of said investigation is a political opponent, thereby creating an obvious conflict of interest" "Should Hillary Clinton be charged for communicating sensitive information using persona devices, or deleting information requested by the FBI during the subsequent investigation" These are really hard issues actually. If you stand outside your hatred or love for these people, and stand outside of your own political preferences, they become considerably more nuanced and difficult than we'd care to admit. They are not black and white enough to have easy answers, and so, we get narratives, misinformation, and polarisation.
fenomas 7y ago
> caught on camera acting in an extremely partisan manner I'm sorry, but even as political talking points go this makes no sense. He made a "cut" gesture during a live feed, but live news broadcasts cut from one feed to another dozens of times per hour, and the feed he was motioning to cut wasn't of any particular importance to either party (it was a Trump lawyer listening to someone off-camera asking a question). That's hardly "extremely partisan".
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  Not any live feed.... a feeding frenzy (Impeachment) and he wants to cut off the dude's rebuttal? That's chickenshit. But of course I'm sure you'll have a rebuttal to this as to why ol Georgy did nothing wrong. You type of folks always show up white-knight style in these threads.
- endorphone 7y ago
  There is a bizarre right-wing contingent on HN. Okay not right-wing, as they're seldom actually conservative, but they somehow identify with this administration. To them the most banal thing from mainstream media (excluding Fox News, of course) is demonstration of some egregious media bias. It is bizarre. I have never encountered people like this in this industry in real life, so is HN somehow brigaded? Who are these people who are so desperate to wave a flag and show how world-weary and wise they are for discharging with basic logic and normal common sense?
  - thu2111 7y ago
    You think you never encountered them, but if you consider all right wing people to be bizarre then they're probably not going to talk to you about politics, are they? HN isn't brigaded. It's just a place where you're exposed to more of what people really think without caring if you attack them. As for demonstrations of media bias, well, do you think the media isn't biased? Here's an article that covers a series of severe factual errors in the New York Times, caused by the political biases of the institution: https://unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-against-britain/ https://unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-a... It's by no means complete. I've seen total falsehoods be printed in the NYT about Britain quite a few times and they didn't make the list.
endorphone 7y ago
That Stephanopoulos example of partisan behavior is an incredible choice, especially when you then claim that the White House is "hardly faultless". Given that you could randomly choose virtually any second of Fox News coverage and have a much worse example, still you chose this? Stephanopoulos was giving directing clues for his own talk program. There is positively nothing "partisan" about that, however partisan he may be. The White House, on the other hand...well let's not even go there.
Balgair 7y ago
Honestly mate, you need to find better news then. It's out there, but it's not 24/7 stuff. The GP is right, there are vastly more good, professional journalists than the celebrity-style 'It-girls' on the networks.
mturmon 7y ago
> ...White House itself is hardly faultless... Are you referring to the difficulty the White House had acknowledging their client, Saudi Arabia, murdered a Washington Post journalist in their embassy? Or are you referring to the spectacle Trump incites at his rallies toward the reporters who are covering them? (E.g.: “Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some Assembly Required") My point: If you survey political journalism and come away with a sorrowful conclusion that "both sides of the aisle" have problems with accurate reporting, then you're not really acknowledging that Trumpists have an agenda of demonizing any reporter or organization that reports uncomfortable facts. The media still don't know how to respond to this asymmetrical warfare, and that's the real story for anyone who believes that facts matter in political reporting.
coffeefirst 7y ago
There's plenty of political reporters doing excellent work. Get off Twitter and turn off cable news, they're a mess. But outside of that world there's no shortage of professionals who take the work seriously AND go through a fact checking process.
dang 7y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22146480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22146480.

macspoofing 7y ago

>Just yesterday George Stephanopoulos was caught on camera acting in an extremely partisan manner [1] To be fair, Stephanopoulos was a Democratic operative for years before transitioning to media. Why would you expect him to not be partisan?

proximitysauce 7y ago
I wouldn't but I also wouldn't expect a political operative to become the chief anchor and political correspondent of a major network.
- aNoob7000 7y ago
  The problem I see is that no one can agree on what is right or the truth any longer. What one side considers the truth might not be the same for the other, look no further than the impeachment proceedings. I'm amazed that we've reached a point in the USA where we can't agree on some simple truths anymore.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >I'm am amazed that we've reached a point the in the USA where we can't agree on some simple truths anymore. I'm curious. Can you give one or two examples of the 'simple truths' that we can't agree on anymore? >What one side considers the truth might not be the same for the other, look no further than the impeachment proceedings. The impeachment proceedings are interesting examples because I truly believe that objectively, even if the facts are as stated by the Democrats, it would be a gross abuse to remove Trump from office for that. It's bonkers. Trump's conduct, at best, warrants a Congressional censure. But I take your point one two sides looking at the same event but interpreting it vastly differently. The Kavanaugh nomination was the same way, as well as coverage around Covington kids (could not believe as it was happening that news reports would profile children in the way they did).
    - Frondo 7y ago
      One simple truth in dispute is that vaccines save lives and do not cause autism.
      - aNoob7000 7y ago
        Thanks that's a perfect example.
      - pbourke 7y ago
        See also “anthropogenic climate change is real”
    - jariel 7y ago
      "I'm curious. Can you give one or two examples of the 'simple truths' that we can't agree on anymore?" "Should Trump be impeached for leveraging military aid to require an investigation into local companies in a nation that was ostensibly interfering in American politics, when the target of said investigation is a political opponent, thereby creating an obvious conflict of interest" "Should Hillary Clinton be charged for communicating sensitive information using persona devices, or deleting information requested by the FBI during the subsequent investigation" These are really hard issues actually. If you stand outside your hatred or love for these people, and stand outside of your own political preferences, they become considerably more nuanced and difficult than we'd care to admit. They are not black and white enough to have easy answers, and so, we get narratives, misinformation, and polarisation.

fenomas 7y ago

> caught on camera acting in an extremely partisan manner I'm sorry, but even as political talking points go this makes no sense. He made a "cut" gesture during a live feed, but live news broadcasts cut from one feed to another dozens of times per hour, and the feed he was motioning to cut wasn't of any particular importance to either party (it was a Trump lawyer listening to someone off-camera asking a question). That's hardly "extremely partisan".

GhettoMaestro 7y ago
Not any live feed.... a feeding frenzy (Impeachment) and he wants to cut off the dude's rebuttal? That's chickenshit. But of course I'm sure you'll have a rebuttal to this as to why ol Georgy did nothing wrong. You type of folks always show up white-knight style in these threads.
endorphone 7y ago
There is a bizarre right-wing contingent on HN. Okay not right-wing, as they're seldom actually conservative, but they somehow identify with this administration. To them the most banal thing from mainstream media (excluding Fox News, of course) is demonstration of some egregious media bias. It is bizarre. I have never encountered people like this in this industry in real life, so is HN somehow brigaded? Who are these people who are so desperate to wave a flag and show how world-weary and wise they are for discharging with basic logic and normal common sense?
- thu2111 7y ago
  You think you never encountered them, but if you consider all right wing people to be bizarre then they're probably not going to talk to you about politics, are they? HN isn't brigaded. It's just a place where you're exposed to more of what people really think without caring if you attack them. As for demonstrations of media bias, well, do you think the media isn't biased? Here's an article that covers a series of severe factual errors in the New York Times, caused by the political biases of the institution: https://unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-against-britain/ https://unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-a... It's by no means complete. I've seen total falsehoods be printed in the NYT about Britain quite a few times and they didn't make the list.

endorphone 7y ago

That Stephanopoulos example of partisan behavior is an incredible choice, especially when you then claim that the White House is "hardly faultless". Given that you could randomly choose virtually any second of Fox News coverage and have a much worse example, still you chose this? Stephanopoulos was giving directing clues for his own talk program. There is positively nothing "partisan" about that, however partisan he may be. The White House, on the other hand...well let's not even go there.

Balgair 7y ago

Honestly mate, you need to find better news then. It's out there, but it's not 24/7 stuff. The GP is right, there are vastly more good, professional journalists than the celebrity-style 'It-girls' on the networks.

mturmon 7y ago

> ...White House itself is hardly faultless... Are you referring to the difficulty the White House had acknowledging their client, Saudi Arabia, murdered a Washington Post journalist in their embassy? Or are you referring to the spectacle Trump incites at his rallies toward the reporters who are covering them? (E.g.: “Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some Assembly Required") My point: If you survey political journalism and come away with a sorrowful conclusion that "both sides of the aisle" have problems with accurate reporting, then you're not really acknowledging that Trumpists have an agenda of demonizing any reporter or organization that reports uncomfortable facts. The media still don't know how to respond to this asymmetrical warfare, and that's the real story for anyone who believes that facts matter in political reporting.

coffeefirst 7y ago

There's plenty of political reporters doing excellent work. Get off Twitter and turn off cable news, they're a mess. But outside of that world there's no shortage of professionals who take the work seriously AND go through a fact checking process.

dang 7y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22146480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22146480.