Comments (12)
No. 1-12
FelixCulpa
FelixCulpa

@Philip Carino would you be so good as to tell me how to assess something subjective without making inference? Without having 100% of the data ALL THE TIME it is (I'll say it) impossible to do. As I said before, with regard to the stock market, even when all the data IS present assessments may vary. This is not necessarily a manifestation of bias or ill will. It is the nature of humans that we do not always agree. If your requirement for reporting requires nothing but pure facts with no interpretation at all then you're likely to end up reading nothing but periodicals on applied mathematics. Most of us realize that if you hear Yanny, and I hear Laurel it's not a moral issue. It's a difference in our ASSESSMENT of the information.

Philip Carino
Philip Carino

Not sure why inferencing was needed at all. If that reporter simply stated what the white house official said without adding the word "impossible" then it wouldn't be tagged "fake news". Adding such details to news reports is biased, unprofessional, and unwarranted and most probably a great disservice to readers of NYT. But liberals seem to be enjoying it very much. And probably to attract more eyes (unethical but rampant in most but all dailies). Do you understand it now? Reporting isn't about inferencing, adding your own interpretations to facts. That's not and I repeat, NEVER will be reporting at all. To end, here's a very simple definition of journalism from American press Institute: Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information. It is also the product of these activities.

FelixCulpa
FelixCulpa

I don't defend bad journalism, nor do I support it. So as not to repeat myself I'll refer you to my previous comment. I think the journalist made a reasonable inference based on the information given by the WH official. Whether he was right or not remains to be seen, but it is by NO MEANS "fake news". At the worst, it was a poor word choice. I'm tempted to ask if you have articles you would hold up as examples of good journalism, as I'm curious to see what the standard is for you. I still maintain that inference and interpretation are not the same as bias. I'm not suggesting castles built on air is good journalism, but if the material supports it, it's not unreasonable, or evidence of bias. Prove to me that Schrodinger's cat is either alive or dead, and I'll show you journalism that doesn't interpret the facts.

Philip Carino
Philip Carino

Sadly because journalism today has evolved from just presenting the news to interpreting it, inferencing, commenting on it. That's the standard today which should have not been the case. Have you read the article? The journalists were even unapologetic that they provided their own interpretation to something that SHOULD NOT HAVE warranted it. I don't know about you but I trust Reuters and AP more than Fox or CNN. I just read new news articles from them and their real journalists there didn't feel the need to provide their own interpretations, inferences, insinuations and such to news reports because precisely it's news, not opinion. Don't defend bad journalism when you see it. Castigate it. People who tolerate this kind of journalism is what made this journalism rampant. If I wanted commentary, I'd go elsewhere. And don't go comparing stock markets analysis and interpretations as if that's news everyone can easily digest. The whole industry relies on expert's interpretation not journalists, you quoted it yourself, sundry analysts. And yes a journalist saying their own unwarranted opinion on just supposedly facts based reporting is bias.

FelixCulpa
FelixCulpa

No, there is a distinct difference between interpretation and inference, and opinion based commentary. If for some reason the US landed 50K troops in Fiji it wouldn't be bias or opinion to say "This is probably gonna affect the supply of Fiji water this summer, so you may want to think about stocking up now, or switching to another brand". Commentary would sound like "Well you know Tucker, I've always been a Dasani guy myself since I like to keep my purchases American. I just hope we're not expected to indemnify the Fiji water bottling plant, they'll be down all year. President Trump says he has ample evidence that the offending coconut was dropped by two drone piloted Fijian swallows. We're still waiting for the DNA to come back on the strand of creeper, but there's little doubt in my mind that Fiji had it coming". Interpretation, and commentary ARE NOT the same thing. If you can find news that's exclusively facts out there, even in Reuters or the AP I'll be AMAZED. Hell, even the most fact based news segment on every channel offers interpretations. The stock market report is full of irrefutable data, but it still gets interpreted by sundry analysts much differently.

isobel_j
isobel_j

Not speaking for Wonderwall but journalists aren't supposed to interpret but deliver news with no bias, with all the details intact so the viewers can create their own interpretations. You are probably confusing commentators/opinion hosts from real news presenters. big difference

FelixCulpa
FelixCulpa

"There’s a certain amount of actual dialogue that needs to take place at the working level with your counterparts to ensure that the agenda is clear in the minds of those two leaders when they sit down to actually meet and talk and negotiate, and hopefully make a deal. And June 12 is in 10 minutes" strongly suggests (to me anyway) that the time necessary to arrange the highest possible level of summit and agree upon the agenda isn't available. I agree, "impossible" was a poor choice of words, but it's not unreasonable or "an egregious example of fake news". I'd say that it's a justifiable, if not ideal, editorial choice. To attribute malicious intent to that word choice, or deride it as "fake news" is highly conjectural at best.

wonderwall15
wonderwall15

I see the problem with liberal media here, they add their interpretation of what officials say which is BAD JOURNALISM. Their readers still seem to like anything that bashes Trump as long as it does just that, sadly. What's more sad is these bad journalists aren't ashamed at all

ThreePatriots
ThreePatriots

Editor

I'm confused... your quote doesn't mention anywhere in it that it would be impossible, but then you seem to defend the NYT report as a legitimate story. What gives?

I don't know about you, but I've had many times in my life where meeting a deadline was going to be tough, but that doesn't make it impossible. And the media twisting that quote to say it is impossible is shotty journalism at best.

Jon Saltzman
Jon Saltzman

Editor

Well, it's a funny thing. He seems to make the Left and the media react to everything he says or does. But actually, I'm not a fan of his lies or misstatements either. The point is that the media doesn't even try to get it right when it comes to him.

FelixCulpa
FelixCulpa

I'll quote him then. What Shah said was "We’ve lost quite a bit of time that we would need in order to, I mean, there’s been an enormous amount of preparation that’s gone on over the past few months at the White House, at State, and with other agencies and so forth. But there’s a certain amount of actual dialogue that needs to take place at the working level with your counterparts to ensure that the agenda is clear in the minds of those two leaders when they sit down to actually meet and talk and negotiate, and hopefully make a deal. And June 12 is in 10 minutes". Sure 'impossible' might be too absolute, but it's shorter and 'poppier' than "extremely unlikely". I agree that words like 'perfect' and 'impossible' shouldn't be in the news except for the Editorial, Fashion and Arts sections, but calling something "fake news" based on ONE WORD is a bit much. I also think it's interesting that "An egregious example of fake news" is when you happen to disagree with a summary of briefing by the New York Times, but when Trump makes an assertion that's demonstrably false, and almost certainly intentionally so, it nothing but crickets.


Conservative

FEATURED
COMMUNITY