JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,757
- 2,220
This article asks some good questions about why the mainstream major media are sacrificing their own standards and reputations to slander our President.
Why is this happening, how do we correct it with respect to the First amendment and how do we push back against it?
Mainstream Media Burning Down Their Own House to ‘Get Trump’
Why is this happening, how do we correct it with respect to the First amendment and how do we push back against it?
Mainstream Media Burning Down Their Own House to ‘Get Trump’
The New York Times and The Washington Post have tripped over one another in the last week to get damning stories about the president on the front page.
But in so doing, they violated their own guidelines and made several serious journalistic errors.
“They know darn well that who these people are would make a big difference in how they are perceived.”
The first is the use of anonymous sources.
In the past week, The New York Times used anonymous sources in four front-page stories about President Trump. In all of these cases, the stories relied on an anonymous source for the central gist of the story. In other words, if there were no anonymous source, there would have been no story.
In March of 2016, the newspaper laid down new guidelines for using anonymous sources, a few months after the front-page article by Michael Schmidt about the San Bernardino shooting, which was based on information relayed by an anonymous source, who told the Times that the wife of the shooter, Tashfeen Maklik, had “talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.” She hadn’t. The story was totally wrong.
“Systemic Change Needed After Faulty News Article,” the Times public editor, Liz Spayd, wrote following the incident, and executive editor Dean Baquet referred to it as a “system failure that we have to fix.”
But in so doing, they violated their own guidelines and made several serious journalistic errors.
“They know darn well that who these people are would make a big difference in how they are perceived.”
The first is the use of anonymous sources.
In the past week, The New York Times used anonymous sources in four front-page stories about President Trump. In all of these cases, the stories relied on an anonymous source for the central gist of the story. In other words, if there were no anonymous source, there would have been no story.
In March of 2016, the newspaper laid down new guidelines for using anonymous sources, a few months after the front-page article by Michael Schmidt about the San Bernardino shooting, which was based on information relayed by an anonymous source, who told the Times that the wife of the shooter, Tashfeen Maklik, had “talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.” She hadn’t. The story was totally wrong.
“Systemic Change Needed After Faulty News Article,” the Times public editor, Liz Spayd, wrote following the incident, and executive editor Dean Baquet referred to it as a “system failure that we have to fix.”