13 thoughts on “News/Politics 8-25-17

  1. The Wall Street Journal editorial board was unreasonably optimistic about Trump for many months. That seems to be over. However, they are still unreasonably optimistic. The lesson from the 70s and the 80s is that Tax Reform will not be passed without significant and competent Presidential leadership.

    Like

  2. And yet here’s a story where the WSJ’s top editor blasts reporters for ‘editorializing” their news story on Trump.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/24/top-wall-street-journal-editor-trashes-staffs-trump-article-in-emails-leaked-to-new-york-times/?utm_term=.ffe398f412b6

    “According to the Times, Gerard Baker, the editor in chief of the Wall Street Journal, emailed a group of reporters and editors regarding the draft of a Journal article covering Trump’s rally in Phoenix. In his midnight message, Baker asked his staff to tone down language in the story that he characterized as opinionated.

    “Sorry. This is commentary dressed up as news reporting,” Baker wrote in one email, according to the Times.

    In a subsequent email, he said, “Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegesis and selective criticism?”

    The Times also obtained a copy of the draft reviewed by Baker. When comparing it to the final version published in the Journal, the Times found that several phrases were removed.

    In one instance, the Journal removed language that described the Charlottesville protests as “reshaping” Trump’s presidency. In another, the newspaper’s staff took out a description of Trump’s Phoenix speech as “an off-script return to campaign form,” in which he “pivoted away from remarks a day earlier in which he had solemnly called for unity.”

    The leak of Baker’s emails, and particularly the leak of a story draft — a significant breach for a journalist that could result in dismissal — indicates some renewed dissent in the Journal newsroom, and possible erosion of confidence in its leader.”
    ——————–

    Just the facts please. Otherwise you’re just offering the same commentary masked as news the rest of the media puts out.

    Like

  3. I don’t think you broke the rule Ricky. But don’t you find that it’s refreshing to not have to be the one playing the heavy, and bringing the bad news all the time? I’ve enjoyed your recent positivity. And I’ve picked up some of the slack, by being more unoptimistic than usual —at least it feels that way.

    As for the piece you linked, I’m afraid it’s only there because it’s too wordy and lacking in humor to be on twitter. It contorts the President’s speech beyond recognition. I didn’t listen to his speech but I read it. Give it a try. (Hint: if you’re willing to see it as an attempt to encourage and unify, rather than a policy speech, you’ll grit your teeth less.) :–)

    http://time.com/4912055/donald-trump-phoenix-arizona-transcript/

    Liked by 1 person

  4. You are kind, Debra.

    I had heard of the WSJ fracas which AJ referenced above and intended to read Trump’s entire Arizona speech to see for myself. However, 77 minutes is too long, and I made it only half the way through.

    These days I am reading a lot of Cato and Reason. They don’t seem to be biased toward either Trump or the Dems.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Good.

    Let the teeth gnashing begin!

    http://news.trust.org/item/20170826001249-riciv

    “U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday granted a pardon to former Arizona lawman and political ally Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America,” less than a month after he was convicted of criminal contempt in a case involving his department’s racial profiling policy.”

    Like

  6. Debra and AJ, Why doesn’t your President do something and make this hurricane leave Texas?

    Like

  7. There have been some mixed and changing signals in journalism training of late, I think. Old school is just the facts, staying away from opinionated words and language, making sure you understand and present each side dispassionately and fairly. It’s what I was trained to do.

    But more recently, there’s been a push for journalists to provide ‘context’ for the reader, to interpret what is happening. That’s when one gets into trouble as we all come at these issues with a point of view that’s personal.

    With Trump, there’s been an added “calling” many journalists feel to expose what they sincerely believe is a dangerous president.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s