
The 'Washington Post' 'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful and Disgusting - Dowwie
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-disgusting-w452543?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=daily&utm_campaign=112816_16
======
gozur88
>A lot of reporters over the summer were so scared by the prospect of a Trump
presidency that they talked – in some cases publicly – about abandoning
traditional ideas about journalistic "distance" from politicians, in favor of
open advocacy for the Clinton campaign.

You'd think people who work in an industry in which credibility is your only
enduring asset would realize what a terrible mistake this is. If you're a
journalist who believes the facts support your position, why would you need to
cross over into advocacy? Why not give your readers the evenhanded facts, i.e.
why not _do your damned job_?

~~~
Esau
Fear of Trump, and the threat he represents to a free press, probably has a
lot of do with this. But you are right: they need to strive to be objective.

~~~
snowwrestler
They need to strive to be _accurate_ and _true_. Objective implies neutrality,
but the facts aren't neutral.

If a politician says that black is white, the headline "Politician: Black is
White" is objective, but not accurate or true.

The reporter knows that black is not white, the editor knows that black is not
white, heck the typesetter knows that black is not white. The politician
obviously knows too--or at least they should. So the headline should read
"Politician Lies About Black Being White." That's really what happened.

Once a upon a time, journalism viewed itself as a check against government--an
institution dedicated to holding leaders responsible and accountable.
Somewhere along the way the concept of "objectivity" turned them into mere
stenographers for the powerful.

Journalists must adapt to the reality that information is not scarce anymore.
If people want to know what Trump said on Twitter, they can follow him on
Twitter! It's free and just as easy as loading up a news website. So news
outlets don't need to just repost what Trump said.

They need to do reporting (and write headlines) that provide accurate context
and tell their readers the truth about what Trump said.

~~~
ulucs
And then we get every news outlet nitpicking the statements of the outgroup
while tolerating the ingroup [0]. We need to add _fair_.

[0] [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-
demands...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-
rigor/)

------
marcoperaza
They managed to one-up CNN, which has still not apologized or even issued a
retraction for telling their viewers that it was ILLEGAL for them to read
Wikileaks and that they had to rely on the professional journalists at CNN to
tell them what was in it. It's made even worse by the fact that CNN barely
covered the most damning contents of the leaked emails.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A)

There is Supreme Court precedent establishing that viewing and distributing
already leaked information, even illegally recorded personal phone calls, is
protected by the First Amendment (Bartnicki v. Vopper is the most recent).

~~~
3131s
And Chris Cuomo, the one making that claim, has a law degree and multiple
politicians in the family. So he was almost definitely lying, rather than just
unintentionally spreading misinformation.

------
autognosis
For those of us who were unsurprised by a trump win, The Post has nothing left
to lose. The MSM has been acting this way for decades, and it is finally
obvious to everyone.

The Post is fake news.

------
Gigablah
Ah, the sheer irony of RollingStone lecturing other media outlets about
journalism ethics.

~~~
jefurii
Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone has been one of the best journalists in a
mainstream publication for some time now. He was writing informative and
critical pieces on Wall Street after 2008 when nobody else was.

Papers like NYT and WaPo are dependent on financial firms and oil companies
for revenue, so they're not going to bite the hand that feeds them. Rolling
Stone's advertisers are record labels and lifestyle brands (clothing, liquor,
games) so they're free to be critical of Wall Street. You wouldn't read them
for copyleft and anti-DRM news though.

------
programmarchy
They must really think the public is stupid enough to buy into their fake news
meme. They're only destroying what little credibility they had left.

------
zaphirplane
The WP,theguardian, huffingtonpost are the 3 self appointed guardians of
humanity, savings us thru propaganda and fabrication The ends justify the
means

------
greydius
Let's assume the Russian conspiracy is bogus. The question I want answered is:
were all the news stories they claim to be fake really fake?

~~~
norea-armozel
Several major stories at least from what I've seen were fake. Like the
"PizzaGate" story which was entirely a fabrication that got legs. So, I think
there's a legitimate problem but I think WaPo is spinning it to mean Trump won
because of fake news which I seriously doubt since exit polls showed most
people either decided their vote months in advance of the "October Surprise"
crap or within the two weeks before the election (with the majority being
months before). The fact of the matter is that modern news is trash whether it
comes from the big newspapers or cable networks. No one does their job at
least in terms of filtering leads, minimizing editorialization in articles,
and keeping the headlines tuned to the subject. Just those three things have
really made it hard for me to know whether I was reading someone's opinion or
an explanation of the facts.

But the list as mentioned in the WaPo article is really not all that
revealing. Some of the sites listed I know some of the people and they're far
from Russian paid trolls like AntiWar.com. And Lewrockwell.com? That's Lew's
blog for all intents and purposes. I don't like him but wow that list is utter
crap. It doesn't target the real problem children like Daily Kos, Federalist,
or Free Republic which I've seen them pass crap journalism or unfounded
accusations as "news" just to name three news sites I've read in the past.

~~~
3131s
Out of curiosity, how much time have you spent looking into pizzagate? Why are
you sure that it's fake?

Also source on antiwar.com being funded by Russia?

No doubting you on any of this, just looking for more information.

~~~
norea-armozel
I never said AntiWar.com were paid by Russia or Russian Trolls. I said they
were FAR FROM it (as in not those things).

And yes, I have read about Pizzagate extensively. It's as fraudulent of a
story as you can get.

