Role of the Press

[Danny Bateman]

Found an interesting piece from the Atlantic over my morning coffee.

The Death of 'He Said, She Said' Journalism

 

I recognize Beinart from CNN. He's a pretty big Trump critic, though he's a member of the press and not a surrogate-- I think he personally was infuriated by the Star of David Trump tweet and ensuing feigning of innocence by the campaign, since he himself is Jewish.

But it's still a good story. I think this type of move from a major publication like the Times represents a shift in journalism coverage of political candidates. He makes some very valid points. The press generally just reports the news, including statements by politicians, without delving into the veracity of said claims. If what they're saying is a half-truth or an outright lie, the media generally just reports the statement and lets the public figure it out.

Apparently the Times thought this specific lie was particularly egregious and decided to brand it as such. This raises the idea that perhaps the media should take a more hands-on approach to fact-checking statements from politicians. Should they call a spade a spade if the person is lying, and report that in the story? Or should they remain neutral and simply report the who, what, when, and where?

Should the press report only the facts as a (mostly) independent third-party, or should they pursue more investigative journalism to expose things candidates may be trying to hide?

Plenty of avenues to pursue on this one.

[BigRedBuster]

Found an interesting piece from the Atlantic over my morning coffee.

 

The Death of 'He Said, She Said' Journalism

 

I recognize Beinart from CNN. He's a pretty big Trump critic, though he's a member of the press and not a surrogate-- I think he personally was infuriated by the Star of David Trump tweet and ensuing feigning of innocence by the campaign, since he himself is Jewish.

But it's still a good story. I think this type of move from a major publication like the Times represents a shift in journalism coverage of political candidates. He makes some very valid points. The press generally just reports the news, including statements by politicians, without delving into the veracity of said claims. If what they're saying is a half-truth or an outright lie, the media generally just reports the statement and lets the public figure it out.

 

Apparently the Times thought this specific lie was particularly egregious and decided to brand it as such. This raises the idea that perhaps the media should take a more hands-on approach to fact-checking statements from politicians. Should they call a spade a spade if the person is lying, and report that in the story? Or should they remain neutral and simply report the who, what, when, and where?

 

Should the press report only the facts as a (mostly) independent third-party, or should they pursue more investigative journalism to expose things candidates may be trying to hide?

 

Plenty of avenues to pursue on this one.

Their job is to research and report the news. Just reporting what the candidate and leaving it up to the public to figure it out is just plain lazy. What happens is the candidate says it over and over and over again and after a while, the lie becomes reality in way too much of the public's mind.

It's up to real journalism to look at the statement, research it and give the public the information needed to show it is true or isn't true.

 

Now, a real journalist would be someone who does this to ALL candidates and not just the candidate from "the other side". THAT'S where the media is totally failing the American public. You can't just rip on one side while ignoring the flat out lies of the side you support and then call yourself a journalist. You shouldn't "support" either side.

[Danny Bateman]

I agree. I think the media should interject some analysis of the truthfulness of the claims they report on, especially because so much of the American population seems easily tricked into believing bull****.

I saw a stat for truthfulness in the latest CBS/YouGov Battleground poll: For Clinton, 72% of voters polled don't think she tells the truth; 28% do. I get that, people think Clinton's a liar. Got it.

 

For Trump, 59% of voters do not think he tells the truth, 41% do. Those numbers completely boggle my mind. Are we that unbelievably stupid? Fact checkers all tell us that Clinton is much more truthful than Trump, even if she lies at times too. But 41% of our country just eschews fact-checking and veracity analysis of candidate statements as "partisan BS from the liberals" and believe what he says? This is kind of inline with Gingrich's statements that "You [Dems] can have your facts; we'll [GOP] have our feelings."

But yeah, I want unbiased journalism and debates with no favoritism involved. I'm a bit worried about Wallace saying he "it's not his job to be the Truth Squad [if candidates lie.]" He's got the third debate.

 

Should he step in in a debate and call them if either of them lie on that stage? Or should he leave that up to them?

[zoogs]

A savvy enough politician will always be able to use the media to his advantage.

 

Media savvy is not nuance, nor expertise, nor competence. None of these resonate or energize the public the same way that professional captivators of attention do. Decent-sounding, traditional campaign bullsh#t ( may not win out against reality TV.

 

Our system is built to reward and elect demagogues. It's going to happen sooner or later.

[BigRedBuster]

I agree. I think the media should interject some analysis of the truthfulness of the claims they report on, especially because so much of the American population seems easily tricked into believing bull****.

 

I saw a stat for truthfulness in the latest CBS/YouGov Battleground poll: For Clinton, 72% of voters polled don't think she tells the truth; 28% do. I get that, people think Clinton's a liar. Got it.

 

For Trump, 59% of voters do not think he tells the truth, 41% do. Those numbers completely boggle my mind. Are we that unbelievably stupid? Fact checkers all tell us that Clinton is much more truthful than Trump, even if she lies at times too. But 41% of our country just eschews fact-checking and veracity analysis of candidate statements as "partisan BS from the liberals" and believe what he says? This is kind of inline with Gingrich's statements that "You [Dems] can have your facts; we'll [GOP] have our feelings."

 

But yeah, I want unbiased journalism and debates with no favoritism involved. I'm a bit worried about Wallace saying he "it's not his job to be the Truth Squad [if candidates lie.]" He's got the third debate.

 

Should he step in in a debate and call them if either of them lie on that stage? Or should he leave that up to them?

I don't think it is necessarily the moderator's job to catch them in a lie. His/her job is to ask fair but probing questions and give all candidates an equal ability to answer questions to deliver their message.

THEN...it is the news media's job after that to question their answers and challenge their validity.

 

 

PS....and, it is NOT the news media's job to tell us who won the debate. It seems like they spend all their time trying to tell us that when that's up to US to decide. They are the ones who should be giving us the information about what was said so we can make that determination.

 

It's not their job to back their candidate while trashing the other.

[TGHusker]

I agree wt BRB on this. The media shouldn't be stepping in to help one candidate in a debate as they did in Obama's 2nd debate wt Romney - in which the moderate really tried to help Obama on I believe was the Libya issue. They should to investigative reporting that is

well "Fair and Balanced" - sorry could resist stealing Fox's tag line. But if Fox were to live this out, they would be equally hard on all candidates and let the chips fall where they may. It is all too obvious were the major news networks lean - including Fox. That is a shame. We shouldn't have that clear of a picture of their biases and we wouldn't if all sides were investigated fully. And yes, the reporters shouldn't be throwing out their score cards as soon as a debate is over and tell us the winner. Often the debate is just the beginning - afterwards it is time to see if the candidates were running fast and loose with the facts. That is where the reporters could help out - investigate the claims made in the debate and tell us if the claims are true or just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

[84HuskerLaw]

There was a time, perhaps 30 years ago, when the great bulk of the major media (television networks, newspapers, magazines) where relatively impartial and kept their personal bias and agendas from their 'reporting' and 'journalism' roles. But those days are LONG GONE. There is no unbiased reporting across the so-called 'main stream media' anymore. The recognized names and faces and the talking heads are all pundits and even more aptly public relations spokesmen for their own agendas and the candidates of their preference and liking.

 

The 'fact checking' is a joke really and someone needs to honestly fact check the fact checkers as their bias is even more disgusting than the blatant falsehoods and misinformation that is spewed by the major media.

 

You have to carefully listen and learn to spot the obvious lies and misrepresentations that are embedded in most media reports these days. When the 'facts' are given, you have to be able to recognize that these 'facts' are often simply invented or fabrications and the data are made up to support the agendas espoused.

 

Your common sense and intuition will most frequently let you see through the BS and realize that the 'facts' are not anything near what is often given as the rationale for the opinions and policy positions they support and why they complain about their political opponents. Liberals know that most of their ideas and agendas are NOT really logical or rational and in order to convince the majority to go along with them, they must make up alternative realities which will enable reasonable thinkers to accept on at least some level the premise for the adoption of liberal agenda items.

[Danny Bateman]

I agree with all of you. Even 84Law and I see eye to eye on some points.

I get the concern wanting to avoid another Candy Crowley situation like with Romney. I do wonder if some voters are so set in their ways partisan that they wouldn't lend any credibility to a fact check coming from an opponent. Especially in an election with two candidates branded "liar." Ironically, it seems to me it's very hard for a liar to convince people that the other liar is, in fact, lying.

For instance, I don't know many Trump fans would be receptive if she suggested he was lying about the Iraq war. Or vice-versa, if he said she was lying about emails.

I almost think a fact-check from the moderator would hardly work on those folks either. They may be too set in their hyperpartisanship to be swayed.

 

I heartily agree the media shouldn't analyze a winner and a loser. That's them openly suggesting how to interpret what just happened to lots of receptive people. We should let people sort that out for themselves. I do wonder how many people shut the debate off immediately after, already decided who "won", without any input from the media.

[BigRedBuster]

I agree with all of you. Even 84Law and I see eye to eye on some points.

 

I get the concern wanting to avoid another Candy Crowley situation like with Romney. I do wonder if some voters are so set in their ways partisan that they wouldn't lend any credibility to a fact check coming from an opponent. Especially in an election with two candidates branded "liar." Ironically, it seems to me it's very hard for a liar to convince people that the other liar is, in fact, lying.

 

For instance, I don't know many Trump fans would be receptive if she suggested he was lying about the Iraq war. Or vice-versa, if he said she was lying about emails.

 

I almost think a fact-check from the moderator would hardly work on those folks either. They may be too set in their hyperpartisanship to be swayed.

 

I heartily agree the media shouldn't analyze a winner and a loser. That's them openly suggesting how to interpret what just happened to lots of receptive people. We should let people sort that out for themselves. I do wonder how many people shut the debate off immediately after, already decided who "won", without any input from the media.

It has to come from THEIR "news" source. For instance, Trump supporters aren't going to believe MSNBC when they say he lies. But, if Fox were to report on it with facts and actual in depth good journalism, it would sink into at least a lot of his supporters. Same with MSNBC reporting on Hillary lying.