Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I cannot get this NYT article out of my mind. It's everything that's wrong with the media today. [View all]reACTIONary
(7,420 posts)33. Personally, I think investigating the claim is better...
... than ignoring it entirely. And a newspaper is not (in the news section) going to go on about how inane he is without some sort of investigation. In fact, they are not going to be very overtly judgmental even with an investigation, as this article exemplifies.
As long as we are talking about journalistic standards for news reporting, I think that will just be the case. In the opinion section there is much more latitude for being judgmental and for making assumptions about the actual facts and motives. Maybe you would be more satisfied with the opinion section, or opinion oriented outlets.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
41 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I cannot get this NYT article out of my mind. It's everything that's wrong with the media today. [View all]
Scrivener7
14 hrs ago
OP
I agree. But I'm beginning to think it is going to backfire on them. They're doing it to
Scrivener7
13 hrs ago
#5
Yes, but to what end? What is the advantage to them of making the media too stupid to pay any attention to?
Scrivener7
10 hrs ago
#27
I watch ABC Nightly News ( which has lately become the ABC Nightly Weather Channel for some reason)
Ray Bruns
13 hrs ago
#7
There is a flip side here. Trump is an attention hog. By not talking about him you undermine his relevancy.
flashman13
13 hrs ago
#10
I agree that there is a paradox here, but I think there is a work around. What needs to happen is to focus
flashman13
11 hrs ago
#23
Yes. Why any outlet pays a White House correspondent under this regime is beyond me.
Scrivener7
10 hrs ago
#28
My husband and I predict the lead story: Tornadoes/weather, airplanes falling out of sky/colliding, shootings, Trump.
betsuni
13 hrs ago
#11
I hear you. And thank you for taking the time. But I'm still going to disagree.
Scrivener7
8 hrs ago
#32
One could argue that the NYT is already useless and basically preaching to the choir.
maxsolomon
12 hrs ago
#14
Sorry, but people vastly overestimate the number of people who watch Fox News
Wiz Imp
11 hrs ago
#22
"which went into his cronies' pockets,"...And most probably into his, or his family's pockets.
Escurumbele
11 hrs ago
#16
The tragedy that people need to understand is the fact that to cover his grift and stupity,
Escurumbele
11 hrs ago
#19