Only 14% of republicans trust the media. How do you fix that? (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

See, that's what happens when you're one of the all time great 3rd basemen and your home fans boo you. But what can one expect of Philadelphia fans? They booed Santa Claus too.

Given his track record Mike Schmidt the writer should probably have closer name recognition to Mike Schmidt the 3B.

 

[Tom Servo]

Just going to leave this here
 

I’m going to say that again, because it’s important. If the New York Times were interested in simply reporting newsworthy material, they would have left in McCaskill’s claim, and reported that she was wrong.

But, you see, they’re not interested in simply reporting newsworthy material. They have an agenda. This didn’t fit their agenda. So they disappeared it. Without a trace. Without a hint that it had ever been there.

 

[rockaction]

Just going to leave this here
 

Awesome.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Keep hoping people take personal responsibility?

Sometimes there is no fixing stupid. Too much self-affirmation out there for these people nowadays. The scary part is that any idiot with little to no classical education in government, history, journalism, or world affairs just pick up a Breitbart, jump on a message board and voila, we have enough of the ilk that supports a buffoon like a Donald Trump. It's pathetic, frankly.

 

[Chaka]

Just going to leave this here
 

I agree that they should note corrections in real time but wouldn't it have been biased if they actually left the false claim in the article?

And does any of it change the facts of the story that Sessions (and Flynn and Kushner and members of Trump's press team etc) did meet with the Russian Ambassador?

It seems like another attempt to distract from the story with a far less significant story.

ETA: And it certainly doesn't rise to the level of "DEVASTATING PROOF...!!!!XPLODE!!@W!@1211"

 

[Tom Servo]

I agree that they should note corrections in real time but wouldn't it have been biased if they actually left the false claim in the article?

And does any of it change the facts of the story that Sessions (and Flynn and Kushner and members of Trump's press team etc) did meet with the Russian Ambassador?

It seems like another attempt to distract from the story with a far less significant story.

ETA: And it certainly doesn't rise to the level of "DEVASTATING PROOF...!!!!XPLODE!!@W!@1211"

As noted in the article, they should've noted it and said she was wrong instead of throwing down the memory hole. It gives the appearance of sanitizing an article when the facts don't fit an agenda, one the NYT clearly has.

 

[Sabertooth]

As noted in the article, they should've noted it and said she was wrong instead of throwing down the memory hole. It gives the appearance of sanitizing an article when the facts don't fit an agenda, one the NYT clearly has.

The fact that somebody has an agenda doesn't change any of the facts that Trump is knee deep in borsch.  

 

[Tom Servo]

The fact that somebody has an agenda doesn't change any of the facts that Trump is knee deep in borsch.  

I'm not disputing that Trump has questionable taste in friends. I'm only referring to an instance of the NYT scrubbing information from an article without either a note saying that Senator McCaskill was wrong or leaving it in and saying she was wrong.

 

[Chaka]

As noted in the article, they should've noted it and said she was wrong instead of throwing down the memory hole. It gives the appearance of sanitizing an article when the facts don't fit an agenda, one the NYT clearly has.

Article corrections should be done but using this instance of removing a false statement as an indication of an agenda is a big stretch. Particularly when no one is questioning the facts in the article.

Sure the NYT is left leaning, as typically demonstrated in their op-eds (and one sees the same from the WSJ on the right) but their reporting is unquestionably top notch.  Failing to attribute a correction does not change that. So when the President calls them "fake news" and holds up sources like Breitbart and RedState as credible it hurt his credibility and suggests that he has more questionable, and potentially dangerous, motives for those statements.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I just find it remarkable how almost no one wanted to talk about the minutiae of editorial choices before Trump came along. A lot of what is driving this is a need to buttress Trump himself.

This is the portion stricken out - per NewsDiff (and folks NYT knows that people are aware of what it is striking out, it's not hiding anything):

Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, cast doubt on Mr. Sessions’s explanation that he had met with the Russian ambassador because of his duties as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying that was beyond the panel’s jurisdiction.

“I’ve been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years,” she wrote on Twitter on Thursday. “No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Rel Com.”

- The NYT reported what McCaskil said.

- All of that is gone now. Because it was an inaccurate statement. If someone is to be faulted here it's McCaskill because she still has the tweet up.

The current article states:

There is nothing unusual about meetings between presidential campaigns and foreign diplomats. Mr. Kislyak was one of several envoys at the Republican National Convention, where his first meeting with Mr. Sessions, according to the attorney general, was a brief encounter after a panel organized by the Heritage Foundation. Ambassadors also attended the Democratic convention, though it was not clear whether Mr. Kislyak was among them.

“Active embassies here consider it as their assignment to stretch out feelers to presidential hopefuls,” said Peter Wittig, the German ambassador, who met most of the Republican candidates, though not Mr. Trump. “I don’t consider it as something unusual or problematic.”

- This article has been continually updated since the story broke.

The original title was:

Democrats Call for Sessions to Recuse Himself From Russia Inquiry

It has gone through five total headline changes altogether.

There have been 19 different revisions altogether. Just because the NYT fixes the article to make it accurate does not mean that the authors - who made clear at the beginning that visits with ambassadors could occur - had to chase down the accuracy of McCaskill's prior tweets as well.

Put yourself in the writer's situation - you're now going to go follow up on the accuracy and details of McCaskill's tweets from 2013 and 2015? Or are you just going to fix the article by removing the inaccurate statement she made and get on with the business of reporting about Sessions?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One other point that RedState (a blog I like) is not reflecting:

- The version that they posted is from 3/2/17 at 5:18 pm.

- There have been six versions since then.

The current version is a total rewriting of the original. The whole thing is stricken through.

You can see here the whole thing has been wiped out and rewritten to reflect current events.

- eta - Point is that the fact that RedState has not told you this does not mean they are hiding it from you, any more than the NYT was hiding anything from its readers.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

HERE the NYT has a separate report about the McCaskill tweet.

AP FACT CHECK: McCaskill Wrong About Contacts With Russian


WASHINGTON — Sen. Claire McCaskill was one of many Democrats taking umbrage at the revelation that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had twice met with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. during last year's presidential campaign, during a furor over that country's alleged interference in the election, and misled his colleagues about it during his confirmation hearing.

But the Missouri lawmaker went too far when she said she'd had no similar contacts in the decade that she'd been, like Sessions, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

McCASKILL: In a statement, said, "I've been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 10 years, and in that time, have had no call from, or meeting with, the Russian ambassador. Ever. That's because ambassadors call members of the Foreign Relations Committee. Attorney General Sessions should resign."

THE FACTS: In her own Twitter feed, McCaskill records two such contacts in recent years. The first, on Jan. 30, 2013, says: "Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions, even those in process." Then on Aug. 6, 2015, she tweeted, "Today calls with British, Russian and German Ambassadors re: Iran deal. #doingmyhomework"

A few hours after issuing the statement, McCaskill backed off a bit by qualifying her assertion in another tweet: "Again, As senior member of Armed Serv, never received call or request from Russian Amb for meeting. Never met one on one w/him."

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/03/03/us/politics/ap-us-mccaskill-fact-check.html

- HOWEVER, RedState is not lying to you or deceiving you by not telling you this. RedState has not acted in a way which is unethical or engaged in 'fake news' because they have not told you that the NYT has updated its reporting in this way. Same applies to the NYT and its practice here.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Some of these facts are outdated, none of them are false:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8moKFCXsAUBmK4.jpg:large

 

[TobiasFunke]

Looks like we finally have an answer to the thread title: the way to get Republicans to trust media outlets is to build a culture of sexual harassment.  Apparently they love that. 

 

[Higgs]

I'm surprised the 14% number isn't lower. The media has zero credibility in my eyes. Every source today is partisan.  What a joke that CNN's Don Lemon comes on Monday night and says the Susan Rice issue is not a story and they won't talk about it.  And then Jake Tapper coming on Tuesday morning basically saying it is fake news.  No journalistic integrity at all.

 

[Boston]

The problem with too many people in the media is they don't have the balls to admit what they are...it is getting to the point where the only people you can trust are the legit right and legit left because at least they have the decency to admit what they are...you can filter what they say or don't say because you know where they are coming from...the dangerous ones are the ones who pretend to be non-partisan when in-fact they have a very defined agenda...

 

[The General]

Keep hoping people take personal responsibility?

Sometimes there is no fixing stupid. Too much self-affirmation out there for these people nowadays. The scary part is that any idiot with little to no classical education in government, history, journalism, or world affairs just pick up a Breitbart, jump on a message board and voila, we have enough of the ilk that supports a buffoon like a Donald Trump. It's pathetic, frankly.

I'll go with this.

Not a fan of the "go with the gut" uninterested, uneducated guy who somehow thinks they know everything.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm surprised the 14% number isn't lower. The media has zero credibility in my eyes. Every source today is partisan.  What a joke that CNN's Don Lemon comes on Monday night and says the Susan Rice issue is not a story and they won't talk about it.  And then Jake Tapper coming on Tuesday morning basically saying it is fake news.  No journalistic integrity at all.

Setting aside this ####### Susan Rice distraction effort, a real problem reflected in your post is people conflating "media" with "cable news."  They are not remotely the same thing.  Cable news coverage of politics is 99% garbage.  But there are probably dozens of outstanding outlets that do tremendous work on political beats and investigative journalism.  Nobody would point to Real Housewives or Zoolander 2 and declare that TV and movies are garbage, so why do we do something similar with news media?

 

[Godsbrother]

I'm surprised the 14% number isn't lower. The media has zero credibility in my eyes. Every source today is partisan.  What a joke that CNN's Don Lemon comes on Monday night and says the Susan Rice issue is not a story and they won't talk about it.  And then Jake Tapper coming on Tuesday morning basically saying it is fake news.  No journalistic integrity at all.

When you say zero credibility do you mean that if you hear CNN report a story you immediately discount it until you also hear it from FOX?   And is the opposite true:  If FOX reported a story would you discount it until CNN (or another liberal news source) corroborates it?

 

[roadkill1292]

Could one of you righties pen a brief essay about the "liberal agenda" that we all apparently have?

 

[Higgs]

Setting aside this ####### Susan Rice distraction effort, a real problem reflected in your post is people conflating "media" with "cable news."  They are not remotely the same thing.  Cable news coverage of politics is 99% garbage.  But there are probably dozens of outstanding outlets that do tremendous work on political beats and investigative journalism.  Nobody would point to Real Housewives or Zoolander 2 and declare that TV and movies are garbage, so why do we do something similar with news media?

It's not just cable news, though they are clearly the worst.  ABC, CBS and NBC are shells of what they once were in terms of being straight down the middle.  Do you watch This Week or MTP?  Its like the Lefty news hour.  Total joke.

You have a huuuuuge blind spot on this issue.

 

[Higgs]

When you say zero credibility do you mean that if you hear CNN report a story you immediately discount it until you also hear it from FOX?   And is the opposite true:  If FOX reported a story would you discount it until CNN (or another liberal news source) corroborates it?

I don't think they necessarily lie, though they have intentionally misrepresented stories (I'm looking at you Katie Courik).  It's more in what they choose to cover and the slant they put on it.  So in order to arrive at the truth one has to watch everything and then connect the dots.

 

[Godsbrother]

I don't think they necessarily lie, though they have intentionally misrepresented stories (I'm looking at you Katie Courik).  It's more in what they choose to cover and the slant they put on it.  So in order to arrive at the truth one has to watch everything and then connect the dots.

Fair enough.