6 ms·

This isn't disproving my thesis that people on political beats sacrifice impartiality and independence on the altar of access.

r_smart 10y ago
But how is that a defense? Surely by that token you have no complaints about anything in the world. Just because a person does something unethical for a reward doesn't mean their actions are justified, just rational. The whole purpose the press existence is to be an independent check on government and to pose to politicians the questions that the electorate cares about. edit: Just to be clear, nobody (or nearly so) finds your claim controversial or new. It's flaw isn't that it's incorrect, it's that it isn't useful*.
- spaceheeder 10y ago
  It's not a defense, but it's not a distinction without a difference. If the problem is collusion on behalf of a particular ideology then the solution is different than if it's a problem caused by current models for monetization of news media being driven by short term consumption habits and an attendant compulsion on the part of journalists to get something, anything, new before their peers do even if it's grade F horse shit and they had to sell out to get it. The rhetoric I was replying to implied that the politicians and the journalists are on the same team because they have the same goals. That's not the case. I think keeping that in mind is plenty useful.
  - pdx 10y ago
    I think I can disprove your premise right here. Of course, as The Center for Public Integrity [1] recently pointed out, "journalists" aren't just making "in-kind" contributions to the Clinton campaign, they're donating real cash as well. In fact, according the their review of political contributions made by people working in various media outlets, 96% were found to go to Hillary while only 4% accrued to the benefit of the Trump campaign. [1] https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists...
    - spaceheeder 10y ago
      I'm not stipulating any of my claims on the lack of lopsidedness in the editorial positions of the journalists in question. A Really Big Number doesn't change what they care about more: being on the same team as the Democrats, or their drip-feeds from campaigns.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    They're not mutually exclusive (monetary and ideological motivations), and they're actually both true. Not all the time, not unceasingly, but both still present. If they were motivated purely by money, they'd all be promoting Trump. He has driven a shocking amount of traffic / wealth to all journalist outlets. Stories they write on him are massively more popular, and he's demonstrated he'll cut off access for their lying. So if it was just money, pussy grabbing would be a good thing.
    - spaceheeder 10y ago
      If they thought that far ahead, they'd fall behind. They live from headline to headline. The fact that Trump is chum right before the election instead of Clinton is partially stochastic and depended far more on the immediate reception to the stories than anything else.
fazzone 10y ago
I thought your thesis was that there was no actual collusion between politicians and the media, just aligned incentives. I agree with your point about the incentives, but don't you agree that this email shows that there was in fact actual collusion going on as well? The evidence seems pretty compelling to me.
- spaceheeder 10y ago
  The politico guy being a self-confessed hack just reeks of the same problems we would expect to arise from a chaotic system driven by short term interests. The notion that the media is cooperating with Clinton's campaign in order to make her win is contraindicated by the attention they paid to the Benghazi hearings and the email server. The Access Hollywood video simply emerged after those things stopped being news. They've taken priority over Podesta's emails because a) sex, and b) if you're not already a Trump supporter or a Bernie-or-Buster, they're mostly a nothing-burger.
  - pdx 10y ago
    They were very silent on the entire email server business. Did they mention it reluctantly a few times? Sure. But they failed to mention a million other things that you probably are ignorant of, if you rely on them for information. They did not mention that the deleted emails were deleted AFTER the subpoena was issued [1]. They did not mention that Clinton aides carried hammers with them to destroy phones in case the phones were demanded by the FBI. They did not comment on the number of "I don't remember" answers that Clinton gave to the FBI. They did not comment on the fact that Clinton claimed to not remember what a "c" meant on documents. They did not comment on the fact that Clinton claimed to have no memory of receiving training on the handling of sensitive documents. I could go on for pages, but I have work to do. Suffice it to say that the media have been complicit in matters dating back years before Podesta emails, not days or weeks. Your contention that they just aren't reporting the Podesta emails because they're boring (they are not, they are dynamite) is false on it's face. [1] http://www.empirestatenews.net/2016/10/16/worse-than-watergate-wikileaks-proves-clinton-emails-deleted-after-congressional-subpoena/ http://www.empirestatenews.net/2016/10/16/worse-than-waterga...

r_smart 10y ago

But how is that a defense? Surely by that token you have no complaints about anything in the world. Just because a person does something unethical for a reward doesn't mean their actions are justified, just rational. The whole purpose the press existence is to be an independent check on government and to pose to politicians the questions that the electorate cares about. edit: Just to be clear, nobody (or nearly so) finds your claim controversial or new. It's flaw isn't that it's incorrect, it's that it isn't useful*.

spaceheeder 10y ago
It's not a defense, but it's not a distinction without a difference. If the problem is collusion on behalf of a particular ideology then the solution is different than if it's a problem caused by current models for monetization of news media being driven by short term consumption habits and an attendant compulsion on the part of journalists to get something, anything, new before their peers do even if it's grade F horse shit and they had to sell out to get it. The rhetoric I was replying to implied that the politicians and the journalists are on the same team because they have the same goals. That's not the case. I think keeping that in mind is plenty useful.
- pdx 10y ago
  I think I can disprove your premise right here. Of course, as The Center for Public Integrity [1] recently pointed out, "journalists" aren't just making "in-kind" contributions to the Clinton campaign, they're donating real cash as well. In fact, according the their review of political contributions made by people working in various media outlets, 96% were found to go to Hillary while only 4% accrued to the benefit of the Trump campaign. [1] https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists...
  - spaceheeder 10y ago
    I'm not stipulating any of my claims on the lack of lopsidedness in the editorial positions of the journalists in question. A Really Big Number doesn't change what they care about more: being on the same team as the Democrats, or their drip-feeds from campaigns.
- r_smart 10y ago
  They're not mutually exclusive (monetary and ideological motivations), and they're actually both true. Not all the time, not unceasingly, but both still present. If they were motivated purely by money, they'd all be promoting Trump. He has driven a shocking amount of traffic / wealth to all journalist outlets. Stories they write on him are massively more popular, and he's demonstrated he'll cut off access for their lying. So if it was just money, pussy grabbing would be a good thing.
  - spaceheeder 10y ago
    If they thought that far ahead, they'd fall behind. They live from headline to headline. The fact that Trump is chum right before the election instead of Clinton is partially stochastic and depended far more on the immediate reception to the stories than anything else.

fazzone 10y ago

I thought your thesis was that there was no actual collusion between politicians and the media, just aligned incentives. I agree with your point about the incentives, but don't you agree that this email shows that there was in fact actual collusion going on as well? The evidence seems pretty compelling to me.

spaceheeder 10y ago
The politico guy being a self-confessed hack just reeks of the same problems we would expect to arise from a chaotic system driven by short term interests. The notion that the media is cooperating with Clinton's campaign in order to make her win is contraindicated by the attention they paid to the Benghazi hearings and the email server. The Access Hollywood video simply emerged after those things stopped being news. They've taken priority over Podesta's emails because a) sex, and b) if you're not already a Trump supporter or a Bernie-or-Buster, they're mostly a nothing-burger.
- pdx 10y ago
  They were very silent on the entire email server business. Did they mention it reluctantly a few times? Sure. But they failed to mention a million other things that you probably are ignorant of, if you rely on them for information. They did not mention that the deleted emails were deleted AFTER the subpoena was issued [1]. They did not mention that Clinton aides carried hammers with them to destroy phones in case the phones were demanded by the FBI. They did not comment on the number of "I don't remember" answers that Clinton gave to the FBI. They did not comment on the fact that Clinton claimed to not remember what a "c" meant on documents. They did not comment on the fact that Clinton claimed to have no memory of receiving training on the handling of sensitive documents. I could go on for pages, but I have work to do. Suffice it to say that the media have been complicit in matters dating back years before Podesta emails, not days or weeks. Your contention that they just aren't reporting the Podesta emails because they're boring (they are not, they are dynamite) is false on it's face. [1] http://www.empirestatenews.net/2016/10/16/worse-than-watergate-wikileaks-proves-clinton-emails-deleted-after-congressional-subpoena/ http://www.empirestatenews.net/2016/10/16/worse-than-waterga...