The Trump Presidency

Hawk said:
Gerard Baker, the editor in chief of The Wall Street Journal, has faced unease and frustration in his newsroom over his stewardship of the newspaper’s coverage of President Trump, which some journalists there say has lacked toughness and verve.

Some staff members expressed similar concerns on Wednesday after Mr. Baker, in a series of blunt late-night emails, criticized his staff over their coverage of Mr. Trump’s Tuesday rally in Phoenix, describing their reporting as overly opinionated.

“Sorry. This is commentary dressed up as news reporting,” Mr. Baker wrote at 12:01 a.m. on Wednesday morning to a group of Journal reporters and editors, in response to a draft of the rally article that was intended for the newspaper’s final edition.

He added in a follow-up, “Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegesis and selective criticism?”

---

03U1n.jpg
Click to expand...

It's interesting you didn't quote us the rest of that New York Times report which is very telling.
 
bravesnumberone said:
It's interesting you didn't quote us the rest of that New York Times report which is very telling.
Click to expand...

This month, Politico obtained and published a transcript of a White House interview with Mr. Trump conducted by Mr. Baker and several Journal reporters and editors. Unusually for an editor in chief, Mr. Baker took a leading role in the interview and made small talk with Mr. Trump about travel and playing golf.

When Ivanka Trump, the president’s older daughter, walked into the Oval Office, Mr. Baker told her, according to the transcript, “It was nice to see you out in Southampton a couple weeks ago,” apparently referring to a party that the two had attended.
 
so anything he says about the coverage not being balanced should be taken with a grain of salt.

That said, as a trained journalist, I wouldn't have said "reshape." The rest was a fair assessment.

But the world we live in now is where people like him can cry fake news and more and more people get more fired up about idiotic ESPN sidelining the first ever Asian confederate while shrugging their shoulders when cable news networks advance conspiracy theories like Seth Rich.
 
"pivoted away from remarks a day earlier in which he had solemnly called for unity"

That's factually disingenuous.
 
Baker made legitimate editorial critiques. He didn't turn his writers away from the story, he chastised them for an exercise in over-extrapolation.

In a time where we're witnessing this convoluted foreplay between news and entertainment on daily basis, when CNN thinks it's acceptable journalistic practice for their contributors (not doctors, not even reporters) to publicly - and seriously - question Trump's sanity on-air, an instance of an editor telling his staff to do their jobs is seriously refreshing. Especially when it's well within the bounds of both reason and tradecraft.
 
Hawk said:
Baker made legitimate editorial critiques. He didn't turn his writers away from the story, he chastised them for an exercise in over-extrapolation.

In a time where we're witnessing this convoluted foreplay between news and entertainment on daily basis, when CNN thinks it's acceptable journalistic practice for their contributors (not doctors, not even reporters) to publicly - and seriously - question Trump's sanity on-air, an instance of an editor telling his staff to do their jobs is seriously refreshing. Especially when it's well within the bounds of both reason and tradecraft.
Click to expand...

There is zero evidence to the contrary that the WSJ reporters haven't been doing their jobs well. I'm not a big CNN fan but Carl Bernstein is one that brought up the mental health angle. I would say he knows a thing or two about journalism and I don't believe it's an unreasonable question to ask given some of the crazy stuff that comes out of his mouth from his fingers on twitter.
 
Hawk said:
Mitch McConnell has 9% approval.

Paul Ryan 16%.
Click to expand...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

If you scroll down you see where they ask people about their rep vs. most reps and there's a clear trend. It doesn't matter if 250 million American's disapprove of the Turtleman, if about 1 Million Kentuckians do he keeps his job.

Trump can't keep his job if his approval ratings stay low. One of the reasons LBJ didn't run for re-election (election? I forget if he actually won one or just had Kennedy's coat tails the whole time) was because his approval ratings were tanking. Even presidents who lost re-election like Ford and GHWB had approval ratings around 50%.
 
64 over Goldwater.
It was written as the death of the GOP.

Congressional approval ratings began with Nixon during Watergate as a PR defense against Congressional impeachment
 
bravesnumberone said:
There is zero evidence to the contrary that the WSJ reporters haven't been doing their jobs well. I'm not a big CNN fan but Carl Bernstein is one that brought up the mental health angle. I would say he knows a thing or two about journalism and I don't believe it's an unreasonable question to ask given some of the crazy stuff that comes out of his mouth from his fingers on twitter.
Click to expand...

Is Carl Bernstein a physician? Is he qualified to make that assessment? I'm not sure what he said exactly, and I wasn't referring to him with my original comment. My issue is with the "early-onset dementia" and "psychotically demented" comments on Don Lemon's show last night.

As for the WSJ, I am just talking about the article in question, not in general.
 
Hawk said:
Is Carl Bernstein a physician? Is he qualified to make that assessment? I'm not sure what he said exactly, and I wasn't referring to him with my original comment. My issue is with the "early-onset dementia" and "psychotically demented" comments on Don Lemon's show last night.

As for the WSJ, I am just talking about the article in question, not in general.
Click to expand...

All the sophisticated critiques of the media these days. Goodness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top