NYT, WaPo, CNN, LAT, Snopes, Vox, BBC, NPR, The New Yorker, Sally Yates, Time, Adam Schiff, Ted Lieu, Talking Points Memo, Pro Publica, Robert Reich, The Atlantic.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods
They don't have an obligation to be neutral. They have an obligation to the truth.
(And an obligation to correct errors made in the process of their obligation to to the truth.)
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:There are media outlets that have a legal (e.g. BBC) and a self-imposed (e.g. NYT) mandate to be neutral in their reporting.
Opinion creeps into news stories easily and the stronger reporters feel about a subject the easier it gets.
Do you have a link to the NYT's self-imposed mandate? I'd like to read it. I looked on their website but couldn't find anything.
No source will be completely without bias. It's also the reader's responsibility to do due diligence.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:It is (or was) generally understood that the NYT holds itself to the highest standards, which obviously must include fair and neutral reporting and at least trying to represent the full range of political perspectives present in America.
That's not at all what you said, though. You said the NYT had a "self-imposed (e.g. NYT) mandate to be neutral in their reporting." That sounds pretty concrete, and it ought to be written down somewhere. If it's not, then maybe it's not an accurate statement to have made about them.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I don't think there is any difference in the substance of the two statements. Maybe something is lost in translation for me.
And does it actually matter whether this is written down somewhere?
There is a difference. First you said the NYT had a "self-imposed" mandate to be neutral, then you said it was "generally understood" - which means (in a very vague sense) that the mandate isn't actually self-mandated by the NYT but is inferred by nebulous others. So - apples and oranges.
anna wrote:It does, because it would have provided support for your assertion that they've imposed a mandate on themselves to maintain neutrality.
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Okay, but are you actually claiming that the NYT does not understand itself in the way I've described?
My point is that even if it was written down somewhere, it wouldn't lend it more credibility than a general public regard for the NYT as an - as far as this is possible - impartial and neutral newspaper that wants to appeal to a wide user base and not to only one side of the political spectrum. Publications can claim to be all kinds of things and Fox News is a case in point.
AFAIK wrote:Maybe there's a certain threshold that a presidential candidate must reach before being called a liar and Trump is the first one ever to breach it. Ter gives only one example of Hill Clinton lying. It seems reasonable to give someone the benefit of the doubt if they fuck up once. Trump lies 10 times a day and regularly contradicts himself within the same breath so it seems reasonable to call him out.
Neutrality doesn't mean equal outcomes regardless of inputs.
Finfinder wrote:This is a joke right ? Seriously 8 years of Obama lying through his teeth and 9/10ths of the media covering it up never happened. Let keep things real.
Buzz62 wrote:Very few media publications present raw facts. There is almost always an agenda to adhere to.
Every morning I turn on the news. Both Canadian and CNN. Sometime BBC, which I happen to think is one of the most impartial.
Every morning I watch Chris Kuomo and his co-host who's name I can't remember, try like hell to paint pictures of "reality" that are complete nonsense.
Today I watch the 2 of 'em wrestle with the fact that Donny Jr. has broken no laws, so they attempt to make this meeting of his an "ethical" matter.
Let's be honest with ourselves. The words "ethical" and "politics" do not belong in the same sentence.
That's what makes the USA so very amusing. The media has known for a long time that if they repeat falsehoods often enough, they'll be eventually accepted as fact. So they get what they deserve. The world as Donald Trump sees it.
Is that a commentary on the media, or is it a commentary on the average intellect of the American population?
Buzz62 wrote:You'll just have to trust me when I say, America...been there, done that, not interested.
I'm just quirky. I enjoy comic relief...
Buzz62 wrote:Ya One Degree, we have our own silly people too. But I suspect that the world sees Canada as a place that sends "Peace Keeping Forces" instead of "Shock and Awe".
But I think it's deeper than that. I mean...we aren't full of ourselves. For instance, nobody here says things like, "I'm from the great province of Alberta!"
anna: You should have come for a visit. BC is a beautiful place. And when you tell us that you're from the great state of California, we'll giggle a bit under our breath, and then commence to explain just exactly where you are in Canada. You'll be treated politely and generally nicely, after which, you may not want to go back.
My own spiritual home is Communist existentialism[…]
A rough ride to the gas chambers, yeah. But that'[…]
Is cancer reality's inability to celebrate God?