How should the journalism community respond to their coverage of Russian Collusion (2016-2019) given Mueller's findings?

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,054
6,585
I was going to hitchhike this topic onto another thread, then thought it deserved a full examination from scratch.

So here we go...... Let's start by posting links to those who might already be considering the question.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,054
6,585
Media stares down 'reckoning' after Mueller report underwhelms

Pretty much my view. The media needs a Mueller style anal exam from its own peers.

That Mueller concluded no one from Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign “conspired or coordinated” with Russia in attempting to influence the election has ramped up scrutiny of the news media’s handling of the two-year investigation. “The 3 biggest losers from the Mueller report in order — the media, the media, the media,” tweeted National Review editor Rich Lowry.

It’s not only prominent conservatives, the president’s TV boosters and family members calling out the media, but also some journalists on the left who have long been skeptical of the Trump-Russia story. “If there's no media reckoning for what they did, don't ever complain again when people attack the media as ‘Fake News’ or identify them as one of the country's most toxic and destructive forces,” wrote The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,054
6,585
Good context piece from two days ago. And a solid example of a journalist reviewing his own profession.

Journalism Dies in Self-Importance

We are not talking about the Washington Post [or New York Times] of 50 years ago,” Koppel said. “We’re talking about organizations that . . . have decided, as organizations, that Donald J. Trump is bad for the United States.”

Both papers have in effect declared a state of emergency because of Trump and have granted themselves the editorial equivalent of dictatorial powers. Doing so may be as ill-advised with newspapers as with elected officials. When journalists don’t consider themselves bound to old norms of objectivity, there comes an absence of restraint that is inherently corrupting. The morning story conference takes on the atmosphere of a rally of zealots. The newspaper becomes the Pequod: President Trump is the white whale.
 

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
55,785
43,667
Ohio
How should the journalism community respond to their coverage of Russian Collusion (2016-2019) given Mueller's findings?


The same way Fox News did when Hillary Clinton was exonerated after numerous investigations by both houses and the FBI.

And I'd remind PH regulars to keep this in mind when posting victory threads. If you still don't believe she's innocent, you shouldn't expect contrition from anyone who still thinks Trump is guilty.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,054
6,585
This is not a victory thread. It is a call for a self audit by the journalism community, fox news included.
 
Jul 2013
58,349
64,444
Nashville, TN
Yeah, it is a victory thread, you are feeling confirmation in every single letter of your every post in it. You think all the scenarios you conjured up in your mind are confirmed as absolute truth, with no evidence whatsoever.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,054
6,585
This is the journalistic ethics we help pay for. I have been quoting their hard new pieces. I am going to highlight a few items that were ignored by many news outlets.

These are the standards of our journalism.

Our purpose is to pursue the truth. Diligent verification is critical. We take great care to ensure that statements of fact in our journalism are both correct and in context. In our reporting, we rigorously challenge both the claims we encounter and the assumptions we bring. We devote our resources and our skills to presenting the fullest version of the truth we can deliver, placing the highest value on information we have gathered and verified ourselves.
We make every effort to gather responses from those who are the subjects of criticism, unfavorable allegations or other negative assertions
We do our best to report thoroughly and tell stories comprehensively. We won't always have enough time or space in one story to say everything we would like or quote everyone we would wish to include. But errors of omission and partial truths can inflict great damage on our credibility, and stories delivered without the context to fully understand them are incomplete. Our journalism includes diverse voices that reflect our society and divergent views that contribute to informed debate. When we find that we can't deliver all the answers to important questions, we explain what we don't yet know and work to fill any gaps in our reporting.
To secure the public's trust, we must make it clear that our primary allegiance is to the public. Any personal or professional interests that conflict with that allegiance, whether in appearance or in reality, risk compromising our credibility. We are vigilant in disclosing to both our supervisors and the public any circumstances where our loyalties may be divided - extending to the interests of spouses and other family members - and when necessary, we recuse ourselves from related coverage. Under no circumstances do we skew our reports for personal gain, to help NPR's bottom line or to please those who fund us. Decisions about what we cover and how we do our work are made by our journalists, not by those who provide NPR with financial support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnflesh
Jan 2019
772
266
Tempe, AZ
I was going to hitchhike this topic onto another thread, then thought it deserved a full examination from scratch.

So here we go...... Let's start by posting links to those who might already be considering the question.
They should STOP their buffoonery hence forth! :D