What I wish people knew about journalism

[IResist]

Having gone to journalism school, and seeing the animosity towards the press, it is obvious to me some people don't know how some things work.

In regards to anonymous sources, those are there for a reason. Sources sometimes either speak on the condition of anonymity, or not at all. If a journalist outs their sources without consent, people will not be inclined to come forward in the future and journalists will lose their trust and reputation.

The next time you try to undermine anonymous sources, remember that journalists can, and have, faced prison time if they don't reveal their sources. Reporters protect their sources even if it puts them behind bars. This isn't the first time anonymous sources have been used, and it won't be the last.

Someone called a transcript I quoted from Trump fake news because he didn't hear it on audio. That's how it goes with transcripts. With a transcript, it is word for word and is completely precise. The AP didn't make that up. That's just Trump being Trump.

I thought I would get that off my chest.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

The way it works is Pepsi says jump, and the mainstream media asks, "How high?"

 

[IResist]

The way it works is Pepsi says jump, and the mainstream media asks, "How high?"

How would you know that?

 

[Lumpy 1]

So what if the so-called journalist is disreputable and the journalists around him are disreputable and they simply make sources up as is the case with most progressive bastards in the liberal media of today?

Let's consider the New York Times, caught hundreds of times in lies and totally disreputable as a news organization. Why should such cowards, American traitors and proven liars receive special rights and protections under the Constitution?

 

[IResist]

So what if the so-called journalist is disreputable and the journalists around him are disreputable and they simply make sources up as is the case with most progressive bastards in the liberal media of today?

How are they making up sources? If they are anonymous? Read my original post.

We have gotten to the point where any negative story against Trump is bemoaned as fake news.

I will be the first to tell you reporters make mistakes. I know I have. The press most certainly is not perfect. However, if any negative story about Trump is fake news, the press is not the problem. Furthermore, journalists have also owned up to errors they made and apologized - like the Trump earpiece and the MLK bust.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

The way it works is Pepsi says jump, and the mainstream media asks, "How high?"

How would you know that?

Because it's what caused YouTube's adpocalypse. Also, CNN didn't give a fuck about Kathy Griffin until advertisers started pulling their ads.

 

[task0778]

So what if the so-called journalist is disreputable and the journalists around him are disreputable and they simply make sources up as is the case with most progressive bastards in the liberal media of today?

Or somebody with an axe to grind against another person fabricates a story and tells it to the media. Untrustworthy sources or biased journalists seem to be common place these days.

 

[IResist]

The way it works is Pepsi says jump, and the mainstream media asks, "How high?"

How would you know that?

Because it's what caused YouTube's adpocalypse. Also, CNN didn't give a fuck about Kathy Griffin until advertisers started pulling their ads.

By that logic, Fox didn't care about Bill O'Reilly until advertisers started pulling their ads.

See how that works?

 

[IResist]

So what if the so-called journalist is disreputable and the journalists around him are disreputable and they simply make sources up as is the case with most progressive bastards in the liberal media of today?

Or somebody with an axe to grind against another person fabricates a story and tells it to the media. Untrustworthy sources or biased journalists seem to be common place these days.

There is that possibility, but highly unlikely in a situation like this.

Also, what is your idea of a biased journalist?

 

[MarathonMike]

Journalists should be impartial watchdogs of both Parties but they clearly are not. Did you watch the Scott Pruit interview today? Nearly every reporter asked some version of "Do you believe in climate change or does Trump believe in climate change?" With all the complex aspects of the Paris Accord, it seems there were hundred other more responsible questions that could have been asked.

 

[IResist]

Journalists should be impartial watchdogs of both Parties but they clearly are not. Did you watch the Scott Pruit interview today? Nearly every reporter asked some version of "Do you believe in climate change or does Trump believe in climate change?" With all the complex aspects of the Paris Accord, it seems there were hundred other more responsible questions that could have been asked.

So, asking if somebody thinks something is real or not is a matter of bias?

 

[task0778]

"We have gotten to the point where any negative story against Trump is bemoaned as fake news."
No we haven't. In some cases, sure. There are some people who will never believe anything bad about Trump and others who will never believe anything bad about Obama either. But I'd like to think that most people are in the middle somewhere and would like to see supporting evidence before making any judgments.

I will be the first to tell you reporters make mistakes. I know I have. The press most certainly is not perfect. However, if any negative story about Trump is fake news, the press is not the problem. Furthermore, journalists have also owned up to errors they made and apologized - like the Trump earpiece and the MLK bust.
What if a negative story comes out that is unsubstantiated? What if a journalist or a media outlet always or almost always runs negative stories day in and day out, and never anything good? Should I trust that person or organization?

 

[IResist]

"We have gotten to the point where any negative story against Trump is bemoaned as fake news."
No we haven't. In some cases, sure. There are some people who will never believe anything bad about Trump and others who will never believe anything bad about Obama either. But I'd like to think that most people are in the middle somewhere and would like to see supporting evidence before making any judgments.

I will be the first to tell you reporters make mistakes. I know I have. The press most certainly is not perfect. However, if any negative story about Trump is fake news, the press is not the problem. Furthermore, journalists have also owned up to errors they made and apologized - like the Trump earpiece and the MLK bust.
What if a negative story comes out that is unsubstantiated? What if a journalist or a media outlet always or almost always runs negative stories day in and day out, and never anything good? Should I trust that person or organization?

My response to that is from what I have learned, people are naturally drawn to negative news stories. That's why we tend to see more negative stories in the news than positive news. Negative stories draw more people in. That's just the way it is.

 

[task0778]

So what if the so-called journalist is disreputable and the journalists around him are disreputable and they simply make sources up as is the case with most progressive bastards in the liberal media of today?

Or somebody with an axe to grind against another person fabricates a story and tells it to the media. Untrustworthy sources or biased journalists seem to be common place these days.

There is that possibility, but highly unlikely in a situation like this.

Also, what is your idea of a biased journalist?

Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity.

 

[IResist]

So what if the so-called journalist is disreputable and the journalists around him are disreputable and they simply make sources up as is the case with most progressive bastards in the liberal media of today?

Or somebody with an axe to grind against another person fabricates a story and tells it to the media. Untrustworthy sources or biased journalists seem to be common place these days.

There is that possibility, but highly unlikely in a situation like this.

Also, what is your idea of a biased journalist?

Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity.

Okay. So you have hosts who are surrogates for parties. I still think journalists don't often get respected in this country. They don't have an easy job. They have to be accurate and they have to be quick and get the information out there.

For me, I'm a sports journalist. So it's different than news. I don't see it as my duty to make any kid/coach/player look good or bad. I simply write about what happened during a game, or I write a preview of what happened, what is different and how the team plans to improve from the year prior.

If it's an individual feature or a long term project, I am always respectful and courteous of my subjects, though still asking tough questions. Someone I talked to last month told me a factoid that was just between the two of us. His high school teammate told me a fascinating story, but it was off the record.

That's what I'm getting at. You have to be respectful of your sources as well otherwise your reputation takes a dip.

 

[MarathonMike]

Journalists should be impartial watchdogs of both Parties but they clearly are not. Did you watch the Scott Pruit interview today? Nearly every reporter asked some version of "Do you believe in climate change or does Trump believe in climate change?" With all the complex aspects of the Paris Accord, it seems there were hundred other more responsible questions that could have been asked.

So, asking if somebody thinks something is real or not is a matter of bias?

No but what they are asking is "Do you comply with our explanation for why the climate is changing"? No one including Scott Pruitt disputes the planet is in a warming trend over the last 130 years and he stated exactly that.

 

[IResist]

Journalists should be impartial watchdogs of both Parties but they clearly are not. Did you watch the Scott Pruit interview today? Nearly every reporter asked some version of "Do you believe in climate change or does Trump believe in climate change?" With all the complex aspects of the Paris Accord, it seems there were hundred other more responsible questions that could have been asked.

So, asking if somebody thinks something is real or not is a matter of bias?

No but what they are asking is "Do you comply with our explanation for why the climate is changing"? No one including Scott Pruitt disputes the planet is in a warming trend over the last 130 years and he stated exactly that.

Well, there is that debate. Is climate change natural, or is man contributing? If Trump wants to negotiate a better deal to get back into the United States, it makes sense to ask if they think man made climate change is real.

 

[Lumpy 1]

So what if the so-called journalist is disreputable and the journalists around him are disreputable and they simply make sources up as is the case with most progressive bastards in the liberal media of today?

How are they making up sources? If they are anonymous? Read my original post.

We have gotten to the point where any negative story against Trump is bemoaned as fake news.

I will be the first to tell you reporters make mistakes. I know I have. The press most certainly is not perfect. However, if any negative story about Trump is fake news, the press is not the problem. Furthermore, journalists have also owned up to errors they made and apologized - like the Trump earpiece and the MLK bust.

Well, they could simply say they have a source and imbeciles like you would believe them. Grow up little man, the liberal media are an arm of the elites and the bought off politicians of both major political parties. Honest journalism on the left has died for the most part, everything they say has to be questioned and checked making them relatively worthless.

 

[IResist]

So what if the so-called journalist is disreputable and the journalists around him are disreputable and they simply make sources up as is the case with most progressive bastards in the liberal media of today?

How are they making up sources? If they are anonymous? Read my original post.

We have gotten to the point where any negative story against Trump is bemoaned as fake news.

I will be the first to tell you reporters make mistakes. I know I have. The press most certainly is not perfect. However, if any negative story about Trump is fake news, the press is not the problem. Furthermore, journalists have also owned up to errors they made and apologized - like the Trump earpiece and the MLK bust.

Well, they could simply say they have a source and imbeciles like you would believe them. Grow up little man, the liberal media are an arm of the elites and the bought off politicians of both major political parties. Honest journalism on the left has died for the most part, everything they say has to be questioned and checked making them relatively worthless.

I see no reason not the believe them if they say a source. There are repercussions for stuff like this.

Unfortunately, I feel we no longer believe what is true. We believe what we want to be true.

 

[Pete7469]

I wish most people knew "journalists" are generally left wing apparatchiks and not worth paying attention to.

Oh wait...

Most people do.