Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on October 14, 2017, 11:40:36 AM
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/reader-center/social-media-guidelines.html
The NYT now wants its "journalists" to project a (completely false) face of objectivity in social media.
We’ve always made clear that newsroom employees should avoid posting anything on social media that damages our reputation for neutrality and fairness. This memo offers more detailed guidelines.
Cognitive disconnect number one: WHAT reputation for neutrality and fairness? Nobody has accused the NYT of neutrality and fairness for several decades.
Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively.
If, that is, you can find anything The Times is seeking to cover objectively. (Good luck wit dat.)
-
I didn't realize they were still pretending to be neutral and objective, or relevant for that matter.
-
I didn't realize they were still pretending to be neutral and objective, or relevant for that matter.
Most of the legacy media stopped pretending to be neutral and objective when Barack Hussein Obama got the Democratic party nomination.
The rest of the legacy media stopped pretending when Trump got the GOP nomination.
-
On a related note, I've just started noticing CNN articles with the byline "analysis by [reporter]" instead of "written by [reporter]".
I'm trying to figure out if that is just being used as a euphemism for an editorial (I haven't seen "editorial" anywhere in the articles) or if they've just decided to to admit they don't do "who what why when where" anymore. I don't want CNN "analysis" of anything. Just give me the raw data and don't tell me how to think. Though it seems anymore, 99% of their reporting is opinion anyway.
-
"The Times is seeking to cover objectively"
When was the last time the NY Times covered anything objectively?
Anyone? Anyone? Buhler? Anyone?
-
Ben said, "Just give me the raw data and don't tell me how to think."
But they burn with the unquenchable need, desire, compulsion, irresistible self-righteous impulse, to inform you that your so-called thinking is wrong and theirs is correct... and here's exactly why you are wrong and they are correct, you deplorable ignorant hick, you.
Terry
-
To be fair, analysis is part of reporting. Very few people who click through to an article want to see a table of numbers. And most don't want to have to read a Supreme Court decision; they want the significant parts, and they want someone with some expertise to tell them how it will change things.
-
Ah, yes, the W,W,W,W,W, and A theory of journalism.
But the A is only OK if it is labeled as such, with a who-to-run-out-of-town-on-a-rail byline, and no innuendos like my favorites, calling two guns an "arsenal," and two bricks of .22 "a cache of ammunition." Jes' samples, y' know.
-
To be fair, analysis is part of reporting. Very few people who click through to an article want to see a table of numbers. And most don't want to have to read a Supreme Court decision; they want the significant parts, and they want someone with some expertise to tell them how it will change things.
Which leaves most journalists out, IMO. If the writer has bona fides in the subject, then I would agree with you on the "executive summary" analysis (though opinion from either side of the political spectrum could work its way in - Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton are going to give relatively opposing opinions on State matters).
I would submit though, that just because someone sits in the White House press pool, does not mean that they have the credentials for an analysis on any subject. In fact I would suggest that most of them do not (I'm looking at you "analyst" Jim Acosta (maybe analrapist)).
-
When I said "expertise," I was thinking of quotations from SMEs, and not the mutterings of journalists (or analrapists). Sorry for the confusion.
-
Damage control after the last O'Keefe expose is all..
-
SMEs
Sertified Media Experts?
-
Subject Matter Expert
-
Which leaves most journalists out, IMO. If the writer has bona fides in the subject, then I would agree with you on the "executive summary" analysis (though opinion from either side of the political spectrum could work its way in - Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton are going to give relatively opposing opinions on State matters).
I would submit though, that just because someone sits in the White House press pool, does not mean that they have the credentials for an analysis on any subject. In fact I would suggest that most of them do not (I'm looking at you "analyst" Jim Acosta (maybe analrapist)).
Which is another way of saying,
...
Just give me the raw data and don't tell me how to think.
...
Terry