Journalism is in the Toilet

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-17-2021, 02:40 AM)TheUberHuber Wrote: This is the false premise.  They were not erroneous at all. Pretty similar to what was actually said.  

This statement pretty much reveals you don't know what a "quote" is.

(03-17-2021, 09:02 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-official-clarifies-earlier-report-on-trump-call-to-a-georgia-investigator/WQPJG3F7MJEJ7EQJHLNVUEGYLY/

I remember a lot of responses to his call with the Secretary of State which was accurate as it was the audio released by the Secretary of State.

I don't remember this one, but according to that article, the investigator to whom Trump spoke to was the one who characterized the call that way and their office put out the report that was then repeated by the media. Your issue seems to be with the Georgia officials, not the media that immediately corrected their story after it was revealed that the report that the officials put out was erroneous.

No, my issue is with the Post putting out a story with inaccurate quotations.  Not only that, but it took another media outlet to actually investigate the story before they issued any kind of correction.  I've trained many officers, and one of the biggest things I emphasize with them is that if you quote someone in a report then you better damn well ensure the quote is accurate, otherwise you can destroy a whole investigation.  Now, such an investigation, potentially, has profound consequences for those involved (e.g. victim, suspect).  But a national news story about the presidential election? That, potentially, has profound consequences for the whole nation.  But it appears I'm in the minority on this one.

[masonbengals fan]

(03-17-2021, 11:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This statement pretty much reveals you don't know what a "quote" is.


No, my issue is with the Post putting out a story with inaccurate quotations.  Not only that, but it took another media outlet to actually investigate the story before they issued any kind of correction.  I've trained many officers, and one of the biggest things I emphasize with them is that if you quote someone in a report then you better damn well ensure the quote is accurate, otherwise you can destroy a whole investigation.  Now, such an investigation, potentially, has profound consequences for those involved (e.g. victim, suspect).  But a national news story about the presidential election? That, potentially, has profound consequences for the whole nation.  But it appears I'm in the minority on this one.

In this forum you are.

[Belsnickel]

(03-17-2021, 11:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, my issue is with the Post putting out a story with inaccurate quotations.  Not only that, but it took another media outlet to actually investigate the story before they issued any kind of correction.  I've trained many officers, and one of the biggest things I emphasize with them is that if you quote someone in a report then you better damn well ensure the quote is accurate, otherwise you can destroy a whole investigation.  Now, such an investigation, potentially, has profound consequences for those involved (e.g. victim, suspect).  But a national news story about the presidential election? That, potentially, has profound consequences for the whole nation.  But it appears I'm in the minority on this one.

While I can agree with this position, I think it needs to be recognized that this issue is coming about for a second, lesser known phone call. This was not about the phone call that caused the current criminal investigation in Georgia. I, to be quite honest, was unaware of this phone call until this thread brought it up. There was a conflation of these two phone calls and that has caused the premise of the thread to be called into question.

You have good points about journalism, but when it is framed with a faulty argument it becomes harder to hold it up.

[fredtoast]

(03-17-2021, 11:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  But a national news story about the presidential election? That, potentially, has profound consequences for the whole nation.  But it appears I'm in the minority on this one.

You are in the minority, but it is not small.  FoxNews in the number one news network in the country.

Everyone here agrees that it was improper to not give an exact quote.  What everyone is pointing out is your extreme hyperbole about how the difference are "earth shattering" and "profound" when in fact they are not really that different from what was actually said.  

The facts are the Trump made calls to Georgia officials trying to persuade them to accept his false baseless claims about the votes.  He claimed they would be highly praised if they agreed with him and insinuated that they would be subject to criminal investigations if they did not.  We all know how fond Trump was of weaponizing the Department of Justice for political purposes.

His actions were highly inappropriate no matter what words you use to describe it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-17-2021, 11:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: While I can agree with this position, I think it needs to be recognized that this issue is coming about for a second, lesser known phone call. This was not about the phone call that caused the current criminal investigation in Georgia. I, to be quite honest, was unaware of this phone call until this thread brought it up. There was a conflation of these two phone calls and that has caused the premise of the thread to be called into question.

You have good points about journalism, but when it is framed with a faulty argument it becomes harder to hold it up.

Understood, I wasn't aware of the second call and the article on The Hill doesn't really differentiate.  Which is further evidence of shoddy journalism!  

[BmorePat87]

(03-17-2021, 11:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This statement pretty much reveals you don't know what a "quote" is.


No, my issue is with the Post putting out a story with inaccurate quotations.  Not only that, but it took another media outlet to actually investigate the story before they issued any kind of correction.  I've trained many officers, and one of the biggest things I emphasize with them is that if you quote someone in a report then you better damn well ensure the quote is accurate, otherwise you can destroy a whole investigation.  Now, such an investigation, potentially, has profound consequences for those involved (e.g. victim, suspect).  But a national news story about the presidential election? That, potentially, has profound consequences for the whole nation.  But it appears I'm in the minority on this one.

Your criticism is misguided and overly critical of the scope of what the Post did. Their source was the Dep Sec of State who was directly briefed by the person on the call and given those quotes. The quotes were in essence what he said but they were not direct quotes, making the Post's attribution of them as direct quotes to be incorrect. The Dep Sec of State repeated this to multiple outlets, the Post was just the first to break it. 

The Post and other outlets were wrong to have direct quotes rather than describing it as the tone or paraphrasing, but this was also a side note on the larger issue of the call to Sec of State Raffensperger, which was recorded and was the "smoking gun" if you will. You suggested that the investigator call caused reactions here and fueled the impeachment charges, but this call was not actually discussed here. The Raffensperger call was. 

Either your made an error or you embellished, either of which undercuts the point you're trying to make about integrity. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-17-2021, 12:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Your criticism is misguided and overly critical of the scope of what the Post did. Their source was the Dep Sec of State who was directly briefed by the person on the call and given those quotes. The quotes were in essence what he said but they were not direct quotes, making the Post's attribution of them as direct quotes to be incorrect. The Dep Sec of State repeated this to multiple outlets, the Post was just the first to break it. 

The Post and other outlets were wrong to have direct quotes rather than describing it as the tone or paraphrasing, but this was also a side note on the larger issue of the call to Sec of State Raffensperger, which was recorded and was the "smoking gun" if you will. You suggested that the investigator call caused reactions here and fueled the impeachment charges, but this call was not actually discussed here. The Raffensperger call was. 

Either your made an error or you embellished, either of which undercuts the point you're trying to make about integrity. 

Yeah, Bel already pointed this out and I responded above.

[Mickeypoo]

(03-17-2021, 11:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This statement pretty much reveals you don't know what a "quote" is.


No, my issue is with the Post putting out a story with inaccurate quotations.  Not only that, but it took another media outlet to actually investigate the story before they issued any kind of correction.  I've trained many officers, and one of the biggest things I emphasize with them is that if you quote someone in a report then you better damn well ensure the quote is accurate, otherwise you can destroy a whole investigation.  Now, such an investigation, potentially, has profound consequences for those involved (e.g. victim, suspect).  But a national news story about the presidential election? That, potentially, has profound consequences for the whole nation.  But it appears I'm in the minority on this one.

This surprises you in here?  lol.

Funny how that Cuomo thread is eerily quiet.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-17-2021, 01:50 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: This surprises you in here?  lol.  

Funny how that Cuomo thread is eerily quiet.

I don't think this is a liberal/conservative argument, although it is true that those leaning conservative will tend to have more mistrust of the MSM.  Also, as has been pointed out to me, this was about a second, lesser known, call from Trump.  This was not made clear, at all, in The Hill's article.  What I do think is being minimized is quoting someone incorrectly.  I think it is immensely important to not quote someone unless their words, verbatim, can be verified.

[Mickeypoo]

(03-17-2021, 01:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think this is a liberal/conservative argument, although it is true that those leaning conservative will tend to have more mistrust of the MSM.  Also, as has been pointed out to me, this was about a second, lesser known, call from Trump.  This was not made clear, at all, in The Hill's article.  What I do think is being minimized is quoting someone incorrectly.  I think it is immensely important to not quote someone unless their words, verbatim, can be verified.

Oh I agree.  I am not Lib, Con, Dem, Rep.  I see a topic and have my thoughts on it.  There is hardly a politician on either side I care for.  Trump, Pence..........blah except for some major policies I agree with and Biden, Harris........blah and I know of no policy I agree with, although I am sure there are some.  Re-joined Paris Climate Accord, closed Keystone XL pipeline, anti-gun, pro abortion, pro illegals, pro open boarders, pro getting rid of filibuster, pro stacking SCOTUS.  No thanks to those policies/ideas.

CNN, FOX, MSNBC and everyone in between seem to have an agenda nowadays to report straight up lies or half truths and I don't really trust any of them.

As far as I can see, journalism is now about who can report the most BS and get away with it to hurt the other side.

[fredtoast]

(03-17-2021, 02:21 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Oh I agree.  I am not Lib, Con, Dem, Rep.  I see a topic and have my thoughts on it.  There is hardly a politician on either side I care for.  Trump, Pence..........blah except for some major policies I agree with and Biden, Harris........blah and I know of no policy I agree with, although I am sure there are some.  Re-joined Paris Climate Accord, closed Keystone XL pipeline, anti-gun, pro abortion, pro illegals, pro open boarders, pro getting rid of filibuster, pro stacking SCOTUS.  No thanks to those policies/ideas.

CNN, FOX, MSNBC and everyone in between seem to have an agenda nowadays to report straight up lies or half truths and I don't really trust any of them.

As far as I can see, journalism is now about who can report the most BS and get away with it to hurt the other side.

Nothing cracks me up more than hearing someone claim that Fox does not influence what they believe , but that they just don't like Biden because he is in favor of open borders.

if you are going to blindly re-peat speaking points that only list in right-wing media why not admit the source of your beliefs?  What are you ashamed of?

[Mickeypoo]

(03-17-2021, 02:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Nothing cracks me up more than hearing someone claim that Fox does not influence what they believe , but that they just don't like Biden because he is in favor of open borders.

if you are going to blindly re-peat speaking points that only list in right-wing media why not admit the source of your beliefs?  What are you ashamed of?

Ummmm.................I have not turned on CNN, MSNBC or FOX in over a month, but whatever bro.  How would you know what I watch?  Are you some sick, twisted stalker?  Are you spying on me?  

I don't need a "news" source to tell me that If you are against building barriers/walls whatever, you call barriers/walls racist, you have pro illegal rhetoric and you are not implementing significant border reform policies that make it pointless to enter our Country illegally, then yes, yes you are for "open borders".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-17-2021, 03:03 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Ummmm.................I have not turned on CNN, MSNBC or FOX in over a month, but whatever bro.  How would you know what I watch?  Are you some sick, twisted stalker?  Are you spying on me?  

I don't need a "news" source to tell me that If you are against building barriers/walls whatever, you call barriers/walls racist, you have pro illegal rhetoric and you are not implementing significant border reform policies that make it pointless to enter our Country illegally, then yes, yes you are for "open borders".

"Open borders" is a right wing talking point.  While there are certainly radicals on the far left who advocate for no borders there really isn't a prominent politician advocating for it.  However, when you basically state openly that you're reversing many, if not all, of Trump's policies it's going to be perceived by many that they'll be able to get in with no issues.

[Mickeypoo]

(03-17-2021, 03:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: "Open borders" is a right wing talking point.  While there are certainly radicals on the far left who advocate for no borders there really isn't a prominent politician advocating for it.  However, when you basically state openly that you're reversing many, if not all, of Trump's policies it's going to be perceived by many that they'll be able to get in with no issues.

And being able to illegally get in with little to no issues and sucking on Joe taxpayers teet, who is a legal citizen; that is open borders as far as I am concerned.

If people want to say Joe and the Dems or whoever are not for open borders, then let's see some policy enforcing the border and making it pointless to come in.  

How about if you break into the USA illegally you cannot get housing, you cannot get a job, you cannot get healthcare, you can not apply for benefits and if you are found you are immediately placed on the other side of the border.  I bet the flood of people trying to come in dries up FAST!!!!   Come in legally or GTFO.  Sorry, that's just what I think and no I don't care about the illegal kids whose illegal parents brought them here illegally.  Shame on the parents.  Actions have consequences.

[TheUberHuber]

(03-17-2021, 11:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Understood, I wasn't aware of the second call and the article on The Hill doesn't really differentiate.  Which is further evidence of shoddy journalism!  

You blame journalism for your own ignorance? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-17-2021, 04:13 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: You blame journalism for your own ignorance? 

[Dill]

(03-17-2021, 02:13 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: This is a really weird thread.   Definitely heard daddy say some erroneous things and command GA officials to find votes.   How does this second call negate any of that?

Doesn't.  

And it doesn't negate the fact that the press also let us hear the recording, so we could judge for ourselves.

[Dill]

(03-16-2021, 07:15 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: Regardless of nyt, the call was inappropriate and could be evidence in a criminal investigation.  maybe actually listen to it before making a thread about it. Also, they made a correction,  which is how journalism works. 

Yeah, this is not really a good example of how journalism in general has "degenerated into something not worth paying attention to."

Doesn't help the credibility of the person making the charge if he has not even listened to the first tape between the Georgia Secretary of State and Trump, which is really the basis for people "losing their minds" over Trump's efforts to fix the election. Critics of journalism should themselves exhibit the due diligence they expect of reporters. 

There is no world in which journalists will never make transcription errors from summaries given them by politicians. There was no golden age in which such mistakes never happened, and from which we are now "rolling downhill." If we want to properly judge journalists' work, we don't fix on transcription errors which are as much the fault of the source, but rather look at the whole--in this case, the mass of factual information about Trump's calls which has been corroborated and corrected by many sources.

Bottom line is we know about Trump's calls and their implications for the election precisely because journalists were doing their job.

And everyone here is relying on journalists accounts to make his points. 

[GMDino]

(03-17-2021, 04:13 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: You blame journalism for your own ignorance? 

I wouldn't say ignorance.  I'd say he just didn't read the story to get that it was about a second recording/story.

And a lot of hyperbole in the OP about it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-17-2021, 04:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: I wouldn't say ignorance.  I'd say he just didn't read the story to get that it was about a second recording/story.

This is unironically priceless, as the story doesn't mention it's about a second phone call.  So apparently you're the one who didn't read it.