3 ms·

Because a sitting president has a personal influence and stake in the articles creation and publication, used as a tool to undermine an opposition candidate. It

by petee 6y ago

Because a sitting president has a personal influence and stake in the articles creation and publication, used as a tool to undermine an opposition candidate. Its plain obvious election interference, and the repercussions are staggering, thats the difference.

Amezarak 6y ago
That is not on the slightest bit strange or unusual. It’s what every President, campaigning nominee, and various administration official have been doing with the press for centuries. Indeed if anything, this President and his campaign have been at this rather less than usual, probably because of his extremely adversarial attitude toward the press. I’m really astonished at the reaction to it.
- petee 6y ago
  Even if it's not strange to you, are you not atleast bothered that it's so common and accepted, as you seem to suggest? You come across as being totally ok with that...an attitude I don't understand
  - Amezarak 6y ago
    How else should it be? Should campaigns be banned from conducting opposition research? Should we demand that journalist sources not have agendas? (Then who would speak to the press?) Should we require journalists to refuse assistance with their work? I'm not a great fan of access journalism, but the reality too is that journalists will publish puff pieces or shaky misinformation pieces to curry favor for more solid news from that source in the future. That's why you see journalists even at institutions like the NY Times repeatedly publish stories from "anonymous" sources that turn out to be completely wrong but which advances some cause of the source - this has become an epidemic in the Trump era, given that a lot of political figures and career civil servants do not like the administration, and mass layoffs in the news industry have meant the replacement of veterans with younger reporters who have to curry more favor. I would prefer they not do that, but as long as you read the news with a critical eye, it's not a major problem.

by petee 6y ago

Amezarak 6y ago

That is not on the slightest bit strange or unusual. It’s what every President, campaigning nominee, and various administration official have been doing with the press for centuries. Indeed if anything, this President and his campaign have been at this rather less than usual, probably because of his extremely adversarial attitude toward the press. I’m really astonished at the reaction to it.

petee 6y ago
Even if it's not strange to you, are you not atleast bothered that it's so common and accepted, as you seem to suggest? You come across as being totally ok with that...an attitude I don't understand
- Amezarak 6y ago
  How else should it be? Should campaigns be banned from conducting opposition research? Should we demand that journalist sources not have agendas? (Then who would speak to the press?) Should we require journalists to refuse assistance with their work? I'm not a great fan of access journalism, but the reality too is that journalists will publish puff pieces or shaky misinformation pieces to curry favor for more solid news from that source in the future. That's why you see journalists even at institutions like the NY Times repeatedly publish stories from "anonymous" sources that turn out to be completely wrong but which advances some cause of the source - this has become an epidemic in the Trump era, given that a lot of political figures and career civil servants do not like the administration, and mass layoffs in the news industry have meant the replacement of veterans with younger reporters who have to curry more favor. I would prefer they not do that, but as long as you read the news with a critical eye, it's not a major problem.