Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
)
.
* News media: In the the position that accepting the spin of one one party's position puts it in immediate opposition to the "alternate facts" of the other party. Neutral poitions therefore put it into opposition to both parties. So stop crying about it. Two positions will prevail, either the right or the left.Sorry Hank, given the following as context:-
* Trump's attacks on the media
* the involvement (or utilisation?) of "new media" and social media in the 2016 election
* the partisan nature of US politics (and seeming partisan nature of US media)
* the general concern over "fake news"
* the criticism (some warranted) in this thread of how some of us (me included) use links to news reports, reportage and opinion pieces to back up our arguments
* and how people consume news
It is not about bias, bias is expected, problem is content as Mightysword wrote, all the facts should be there, then the writer can give them the bias they prefer. Hiding facts is not acceptable in journalism no is bad practices.clakclak wrote:It would not be less bad, but I would certainly approach an article I found on Xinhua a lot differently than one I found on Reuters.Mightysword wrote:It's just a thing with me ... I never really bother about the "who" detail. I judge the article based not on who wrote it, but its content, in this case the content is simply bad, and would still be bad even if it was published on a different platform. And it's not like I have not seen something just as bad on another platform. I mean ... if you had found that same article on ABC or CNN or FOX ... would you think it will make it ... less bad?
[...]
Speaking of which, I don't envy this man's position:Of course, if you dig around on BBC News Worldwide you may actually find more varied news from around the world.
Good point, but if you followed op-eds you'd find the one thing that set's Trump off is fact checking him. You point out his "Alternate Facts" and suddenly he's back calling them "The enemy of the people". If you gloss over his "alternate facts" then you are accused of enabling him. American journalism and to some point world journalism is trying to find some middle ground, but can't quite figure on how to do this without coming to the realization that it's only to be done at the sake of journalistic ethics or simply not covering US politics at all.. When actually the press should be at each other throats regarding fake news, misinformation and plain lies, and pretty much cleaning their act.
.The paper >>has<< acted on the information. It published it. Presumably (?) it found enough credibility in it that it a) warrented publishing it and b) warrented protecting the anonymity of the source.Santi wrote:It is not about bias, bias is expected, problem is content as Mightysword wrote, all the facts should be there, then the writer can give them the bias they prefer. Hiding facts is not acceptable in journalism no is bad practices.clakclak wrote:It would not be less bad, but I would certainly approach an article I found on Xinhua a lot differently than one I found on Reuters.Mightysword wrote:It's just a thing with me ... I never really bother about the "who" detail. I judge the article based not on who wrote it, but its content, in this case the content is simply bad, and would still be bad even if it was published on a different platform. And it's not like I have not seen something just as bad on another platform. I mean ... if you had found that same article on ABC or CNN or FOX ... would you think it will make it ... less bad?
[...]
Take the I am part of the Resistance Op-Ed (Opinion - Editorial) by The New York Times.
The author is given anonymity like it was a source of a current investigation by the paper, but it is writing an opinion article and the paper is not going to act on that information.
This has caused a lot of debate within the Journalists of The New York Times and other press professionals, it is a big scoop, it is great news discovering a "Resistance" within the government of the USA and something they strongly feel the public should know about it, if it is true.
But they cannot investigate it, on the one hand the New York Times is protecting the source from their own journalists, on the other, even if they go on their own and find something, their own paper, The New York Times will... well censor them to protect the source.
To top it up, that person, a high official presumably, is now a puppet in the hands of The New York Times, a liability for other presumed "conspirators" and leverage for whoever finds his name.
I've been wondering the same thing. NYT has been excusing it in different ways too, but who publishes it directly? Not something you'd expect of (you pointed) out, the Washington Post in the Nixon days and Trump jumped on it just too fast and it was all timed too well as a deflection from Woodward's book coming out. It just stinks from start to finish. I expect sometime in the future to find out it was leaked to the NYT by the Trump team. Time will tell.But it is published as an opinion, so they will not follow it up Registerme, why [do] The New York Times do that?
Well it was published as an op-ed piece, rather than "opinion". But my point about the NYT or WP or FT or anybody else just letting anybody use them as a platform for an opinion piece stands.....Santi wrote:But it is published as an opinion, so they will not follow it up Registerme, why do The New York Times do that? Imagine the Watergate, Deepthroat, and Woodward and Bernstein saying, right mate, tell you what, very interesting but what we want you to do is to write and Op-Ed about it and that is it, and of course we will protect your identity, and then lets call it a day.
I totally agree with that, it is very important for people to be hear and have a platform where they can voice their thoughts.RegisterMe wrote:But my point about the NYT or WP or FT or anybody else just letting anybody use them as a platform for an opinion piece stands.....
Whilst I agree with you, you deliberately misinterpreted what I said.Santi wrote:I totally agree with that, it is very important for people to be hear and have a platform where they can voice their thoughts.RegisterMe wrote:But my point about the NYT or WP or FT or anybody else just letting anybody use them as a platform for an opinion piece stands.....
I thought the point to be more news savvy.Mightysword wrote:@Fiskal, you missed most of the points:
- It's not about how hard to identify them, it's about the ratio. Maybe it's just me, but when I visit a newsite, I would like most of the content are actual news. Because if I want opinion, I would go to a forum, or reading a blog.
- It's not about you or me identifying something as news or not. It's about these days people treating most thing as news. People can link an opinionated piece as a 'citation' for their 'news' when it's merely a bias opinion of someone who just happens to write something on CNN/Fox. It's not conjecture, it's fact, remember we live in an age when people are accepting social platform like facebook/twitter or even youtube as news source.
