Caroline Kennedy --- 2020

[Saab2000]

There is one thing I will concede regarding the media - I have never felt comfortable with events like the White House Corespondents Dinner. If the press is supposed to be neutral and objective, having events hosted by the White House seems odd to me. Seems like the foxes guarding the hen house. Too chummy. That doesn't mean I endorse open hostility upon the free press and freedom of speech, something that I do feel is taking place right now.

But I don't think the media and the government need to be too close either. It destroys objectivity.

[Dallas Tex]

Foreigner here, so my politics stay out of your country. That said, the New York Times has maintained the same level of journalistic integrity and decent objectivity since 1850 or so. Ditto the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. You'll note they're positioned across the political spectrum. There are some excellent journalists and media outlets in your country. If they're calling BS, it's because it's objectively BS.

You can safely read the news presented by those at the left and right of center of this graphic.
Attachment 100373

For most of my life the New York Times was regarded as 'the paper of record'. It was excellent, I may not have agreed with some op-ed type pieces but the reporting, the standards, the writing was always head & shoulders above nearly everyone else. That New York Times is gone. The new version is a loosely interpreted shadow of its former self. I don't have an infographic but I doubt there is much disagreement regarding.

[sine]

Just read the Economist, the WSJ has dropped a grade level since it was Murdoched.
Read the FT instead. The NYT for your commie liberal/statist media, (lefties and righties both hate the NYT)

Wow, what. Best cycling coverage in US mass print by far.

[Cookietruck]

sounds pretty rough over there...

Sean Spicer targets own staff in leak crackdown - POLITICO

[Saab2000]

For most of my life the New York Times was regarded as 'the paper of record'. It was excellent, I may not have agreed with some op-ed type pieces but the reporting, the standards, the writing was always head & shoulders above nearly everyone else. That New York Times is gone. The new version is a loosely interpreted shadow of its former self. I don't have an infographic but I doubt there is much disagreement regarding.

I'm not a voracious consumer of NYT content but when I buy one I'm never disappointed. The articles seem well written and well thought out. And mostly I don't buy it for 'news' or political content. Mostly it has articles and stories about things that are totally non-political or are of a local or regional interest. I've read science columns that are very interesting. An article about a probe's mission to Jupiter can hardly be construed as being political or partisan.

I guess before I write off the NYT I'd like see specific examples of bad journalism from their ranks. I know they had a scandal a few years ago where a reporter did lie about something and was caught and immediately fired. The details of the story fail me but the NYT seemed to take it seriously.

As to the Washington Post, I am a regular reader of that publication. My brother gets the paper in paper form at his house and when I am there (frequently) I will read it and I find it too is a good publication with good articles.

I rarely see a strong political bent to stories though I am not blind to it on the Op/Ed pages but that's why they're called Op/Ed pages - they're opinion and editorial articles and they don't pretend to be otherwise.

Something I've never understood since I was a kid was the practice of endorsing a political candidate. That does seem to go outside the scope of journalistic neutrality. True journalists ought to try to report something as neutrally as possible, or at least try to objectively report multiple sides to an issue.

I fail to see the problem with these historically great newspapers and I don't think I'm blind to the world. I've been a big news and information consumer my whole life.

[C.Dyer]

For most of my life the New York Times was regarded as 'the paper of record'. It was excellent, I may not have agreed with some op-ed type pieces but the reporting, the standards, the writing was always head & shoulders above nearly everyone else. That New York Times is gone. The new version is a loosely interpreted shadow of its former self. I don't have an infographic but I doubt there is much disagreement regarding.

What are your go-to sources for news these days? What do you consider to be the paper (substitute website/channel/magazine etc as needed) of record?

[BBB]

There is a serious problem when the press is labelled an enemy of the people.

And all because they report on 'pussy grabbing', sleeping (or at least talking and/or connviving with the enemy) and the administration's continual bumbling, lies and deception.

If Trump wants the media to play nice, maybe stop kicking own goal after own goal. Politicians who declare war on the media in countries with robust democracies usually come out the worse for wear.

[guido]

For most of my life the New York Times was regarded as 'the paper of record'. It was excellent, I may not have agreed with some op-ed type pieces but the reporting, the standards, the writing was always head & shoulders above nearly everyone else. That New York Times is gone. The new version is a loosely interpreted shadow of its former self. I don't have an infographic but I doubt there is much disagreement regarding.

I disagree entirely. There has been a huge slip in integrity in broadcast media but the New York Times has kept the standard it has held for the 40+ years I have been reading it. Maybe if you turned off Rush for a couple of days you might start to feel a bit better...

[colker]

Politicians who declare war on the media in countries with robust democracies usually come out the worse for wear.

They usually don´t last long in office.

[colker]

I'm not a voracious consumer of NYT content but when I buy one I'm never disappointed. The articles seem well written and well thought out. And mostly I don't buy it for 'news' or political content. Mostly it has articles and stories about things that are totally non-political or are of a local or regional interest. I've read science columns that are very interesting. An article about a probe's mission to Jupiter can hardly be construed as being political or partisan.

I guess before I write off the NYT I'd like see specific examples of bad journalism from their ranks. I know they had a scandal a few years ago where a reporter did lie about something and was caught and immediately fired. The details of the story fail me but the NYT seemed to take it seriously.

As to the Washington Post, I am a regular reader of that publication. My brother gets the paper in paper form at his house and when I am there (frequently) I will read it and I find it too is a good publication with good articles.

I rarely see a strong political bent to stories though I am not blind to it on the Op/Ed pages but that's why they're called Op/Ed pages - they're opinion and editorial articles and they don't pretend to be otherwise.

Something I've never understood since I was a kid was the practice of endorsing a political candidate. That does seem to go outside the scope of journalistic neutrality. True journalists ought to try to report something as neutrally as possible, or at least try to objectively report multiple sides to an issue.

I fail to see the problem with these historically great newspapers and I don't think I'm blind to the world. I've been a big news and information consumer my whole life.

Threre are shitty blogs and propaganda websites calling themselves journalism these days and it´s not the same thing.
True journalism has an ethics code to live by: if a paper publishes a story, it needs to back it up or a lot of people will be fired. They won´t work in another paper so soon either.

[choke]

Something I've never understood since I was a kid was the practice of endorsing a political candidate. That does seem to go outside the scope of journalistic neutrality. True journalists ought to try to report something as neutrally as possible, or at least try to objectively report multiple sides to an issue.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence and it's part of why I have never felt there was 'journalistic neutrality' in this country. Certainly there are times when it happens but IMO it's the exception rather than the rule. Every paper, and other news outlet for that matter, has it's own agenda and biases and those are ever present....even if it's not a blatant bias, it appears in the simple choice of what to report and what not to report.

And people's own biases show up in the papers/TV news/etc. that they read, so they tend to believe the ones that agree with them and disagree with those which don't. That only reinforces the feeling that some papers are honest and others are full of BS.

And all because they report on 'pussy grabbing', sleeping (or at least talking and/or connviving with the enemy) and the administration's continual bumbling, lies and deception.

That's the second time recently on VS that I've read what I can only interpret to be Russia (or Putin I suppose, though I'm not sure how one would separate the two) being defined as "the enemy".

Serious question....do most people feel that way? Is that a general consensus? It's definitely not how I see Russia so I'm just wondering how others view them.

[Matthew J]

That's the second time recently on VS that I've read what I can only interpret to be Russia (or Putin I suppose, though I'm not sure how one would separate the two) being defined as "the enemy".

Serious question....do most people feel that way? Is that a general consensus? It's definitely not how I see Russia so I'm just wondering how others view them.

Save North Korea, with which the US technically remains in a state of war, not sure there is any country out there that qualifies as an enemy in the classic sense.

Russia, however, is not and certainly should not be considered a friend. Under Putin Russia transistioned from a fledging democracy to a one party state. As much a dictatorship as any other. Journalists and opposition politicians are harassed, jailed and regularly murdered. Along with the very obvious shenanigans in Ukraine, Russia supports break away states in Georgia and Moldova. It is currently behind efforts to foment anti-Kosovar attitudes in Serbia. Russia regularly interferes in the Baltic states.

[BBB]

Sleeping with the enemy was just and easy and convenient description rather than setting out a true state of affairs.

I would have thought Russia is antagonistic as opposed to an enemy per se. It is also a mafia or gangster state and you (the US) are seemingly at cross-purposes with Russia over European and Middle Eastern politics.

If it comes out that members of Trump's team were involved in back channel discussions with Russia with a view to undermining Clinton, or if Trump is compromised in someway to the Russians, then it will be very interesting times and no amount of 'fake news' slogans or brain explosions on social media are going to help.

[colker]

I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence and it's part of why I have never felt there was 'journalistic neutrality' in this country. Certainly there are times when it happens but IMO it's the exception rather than the rule. Every paper, and other news outlet for that matter, has it's own agenda and biases and those are ever present....even if it's not a blatant bias, it appears in the simple choice of what to report and what not to report.

And people's own biases show up in the papers/TV news/etc. that they read, so they tend to believe the ones that agree with them and disagree with those which don't. That only reinforces the feeling that some papers are honest and others are full of BS.

That's the second time recently on VS that I've read what I can only interpret to be Russia (or Putin I suppose, though I'm not sure how one would separate the two) being defined as "the enemy".

Serious question....do most people feel that way? Is that a general consensus? It's definitely not how I see Russia so I'm just wondering how others view them.

Actually, openly endorsing a candidate is more honest than pretending a neutrality which simply never existed. Papers either endorse openly or disguised... In my country it´s disguised.
When a paper openly endorses a candidate, it´s readers know the paper choses certain solutions and a certain view. There is always a choice between two ways of dealing w/ issues.
Otoh.. chosing a side does not give a free pass to any media to publish lies or fiction disguised as facts. When the Times opnely endorse Hillary, it does not mean it´s her propaganda tool. It´s still journalism and adheres to facts.

[colker]

Save North Korea, with which the US technically remains in a state of war, not sure there is any country out there that qualifies as an enemy in the classic sense.

Russia, however, is not and certainly should not be considered a friend. Under Putin Russia transistioned from a fledging democracy to a one party state. As much a dictatorship as any other. Journalists and opposition politicians are harassed, jailed and regularly murdered. Along with the very obvious shenanigans in Ukraine, Russia supports break away states in Georgia and Moldova. It is currently behind efforts to foment anti-Kosovar attitudes in Serbia. Russia regularly interferes in the Baltic states.

NOt to mention Syria: Russia and the US clashed on how to deal w/ the genocide in Syria. It was about Russia telling the US it was their territory.

[spopepro]

That's the second time recently on VS that I've read what I can only interpret to be Russia (or Putin I suppose, though I'm not sure how one would separate the two) being defined as "the enemy".

Serious question....do most people feel that way? Is that a general consensus? It's definitely not how I see Russia so I'm just wondering how others view them.

Well, there's a recently declassified photo on a hangar wall of a pair of Russian MiGs in NATO airspace taken from some F-15 that just *happened* to be in Romania for "training" last fall, which then escorted the MiGs home.

So I guess it depends on what exactly you think "the enemy" means...

[Matthew J]

NOt to mention Syria: Russia and the US clashed on how to deal w/ the genocide in Syria. It was about Russia telling the US it was their territory.

Yeah, I gave Syria short shrift because every party save maybe the Kurds who had a chance to do good there has failed horribly.

But Russia is actively supporting Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah troops in Syria, support that clearly carries over to Russian policy toward Iran and Lebanon - so no, what is happening in Syria is not Realpolitc. Again, maybe not a classic enemy, but gee willickers, here I thought the US was finally doing right by Israel and all. Yet the two forces that arguably cause Israel the most grief are in tight with the country and guy we are being told to consider a friend.

[Scott G.]

Tsar Putin's Russia requires an enemy, the US is the designated bad guy.
A semi working kleptocracy requires something to make the citizens feel better,
big bad Uncle Sam is it.

[choke]

Thanks to all of you who responded to my question. It seems pretty clear that my view of Russia is in the minority here, which I find rather interesting to say the least. FWIW, I spent 8 months at the American Embassy Moscow, USSR while a member of the USMC. Perhaps that gives me a different perspective on Russia, though obviously much has changed since I was there.....but I would say that my views on foreign policy have also changed a lot in that time frame.

So I guess it depends on what exactly you think "the enemy" means...

And apparently how one defines 'enemy' as well.

Tsar Putin's Russia requires an enemy, the US is the designated bad guy.
A semi working kleptocracy requires something to make the citizens feel better,
big bad Uncle Sam is it.

One could say the same about the US.....it needs an enemy and right now Russia is it. Oh, and Islamic Terrorism. And Syria. And...and...

[choke]

Actually, openly endorsing a candidate is more honest than pretending a neutrality which simply never existed. Papers either endorse openly or disguised... In my country it´s disguised.
When a paper openly endorses a candidate, it´s readers know the paper choses certain solutions and a certain view. There is always a choice between two ways of dealing w/ issues.
Otoh.. chosing a side does not give a free pass to any media to publish lies or fiction disguised as facts. When the Times opnely endorse Hillary, it does not mean it´s her propaganda tool. It´s still journalism and adheres to facts.

I get what you're saying and agree to some extent, but then that means that the paper simply isn't neutral no matter how much they may try to tell us that they are.

As for papers (media in general) being propaganda tools for the candidate of their choice....I'd say that's exactly what they are. In a perfect world that wouldn't be the case but.....

Just as my views on Russia differ from most here, so do my views on 'journalism'. I treat everything reported by the media, regardless of what organization is doing the reporting or what agenda it supports, with a huge heaping dose of skepticism.