Media Tracker (2 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    SaintForLife

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    7,313
    Reaction score
    3,404
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.

    There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.


    That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they actually independently confirmed the story?






    Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?
     
    bird said:
    Media has fractured. Anyone with a podcast/blog/whatever is now “Media”. That is the environment that must be negotiated by politicians in particular and the public in general. This means someone can find any media source to echo their belief structure.
    Click to expand...

    This makes teaching critical source evaluation even more important. One thing I appreciate about Substack is that readers are quick to point out errors or call out any questionable claims from contributors. The writers I follow are not afraid to verify and correct their content when necessary. However, according to MAGA supporters, the only subjects children should be taught in school are reading and math, so it's unlikely that "source evaluation" will ever make it into the curriculum.
     
    CNN journalists avoided mentioning the most sordid elements of President Donald Trump’s past—including his felony conviction and two impeachments—during inauguration day broadcasts after the network’s top boss told them to show some deference to the most powerful person on earth.

    That’s according to a report in media news publication Status, authored by the well-sourced erstwhile CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy.

    During a routine editorial meeting on Sunday, meant to plan the extensive logistics of an inauguration, CNN CEO Mark Thompson told journalists to avoid “pre-judging Trump,” Status reported.

    In addition to instructing them to keep an open mind about Trump’s second term—three days in, the president has already launched attacks on birthright citizenship, pardoned violent insurrectionists, and withdrawn from the World Health Organization and Paris climate agreement—Thompson told his journalists he does not want CNN’s “coverage to relitigate the past.”

    Among those in attendance were Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper, star anchors who have long reported on Trump’s record of scandals, opining at length on everything from sexual misconduct allegations made against him by over two dozen women to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

    That previous coverage, however, came under the leadership of former boss Jeff Zucker, who threw the weight of CNN at Trump during the president’s first term in office, allowing on-air talent to directly address his stream of falsehoods.

    Thompson would have none of that and urged talent to withhold expressions of indignation aimed at Trump or his conduct.

    When the call with Thompson wrapped up, no one spoke up, Status said, suggesting the message to treat the president with kid gloves had been received. (Status had earlier reported on the softball coverage that went to air Monday, including an uncharacteristically muted Tapper.)

    “[Thompson] does not want them endlessly poking the eye of the sitting president and believes that Trump should be shown some deference,“ Darcy wrote. ”And he has made it clear that he wants the MAGA movement to have a seat at the table when discussing political topics... even if certain pundits do use the platform to make incendiary and sometimes false claims."............

     
    Another issue - this time with Meta. They claim it was a technical error - but there’s no way that’s true.

     
    Americans really do inhabit two worlds: some shed tears of sadness at the advent of Donald Trump’s second presidency. Others cried, too – with joy.

    Across the conservative, “post-liberal” and alternative media spheres, journalists, pundits and some social media circles celebrated the end of the Biden era with the enthusiasm of rebels toppling the relics of a collapsing dictatorship.

    As Trump swore his presidential oath, the writer Walter Kirn, a pro-Trump, anti-establishment agitator on X, grandiloquently declared: “This is a revolution against a corrupt ancien regime.”

    That sentiment was widely shared, with rightwing pundits framing Trump’s inauguration as “regime change” and “revolutionary” and mocking the “panic attacks” of liberal late-night hosts and MSNBC anchors.

    The conservative City Journal described Trump’s inauguration as “exhilarating”, arguing it was “safe to be a white male again” (while also criticizing Trump’s speech for failing to offer “any gestures of reconciliation toward the previous administration”).

    Some commentators triumphantly proclaimed Trump’s return part of a broader rightwing populist sweep across the world.

    A New York Post op-ed a couple of days before inauguration arguedthat Trump’s “smashing victory is inspiring conservative parties in Canada, Europe and elsewhere to get off the mat and fight to reverse their countries’ progressive slide into oblivion”.

    The Liberal party in Canada is expected to suffer a cratering loss to the Conservatives this year.

    Elon Musk’s Nazi salute-like hand gesture received scant coverage on the right, with most outlets either not covering it, dismissing it as meaningless, or sharing memes with examples of Democratic politicians making similar gestures.

    (Musk has mocked the suggestion that it was a Nazi salute, without apologizing; the Anti-Defamation League immediately issued a statement defending him, before backtracking as Musk began making Nazi puns on X.)

    But there were some cracks visible on the right.……

    www.theguardian.com

    ‘Safe to be a white male again’: how conservative media covered Trump’s first week

    The right is ecstatic about the end of the Biden era – but remains polarized about some of Trump’s decisions
    www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
     
    Dragon said:
    EU are taking specific actions to protect elections from disinformation. This test aims to assess their measures against disinformation in preparation for the upcoming German election but will be expanded to cover all EU elections and platforms will risk legal implications if they do not abide by the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA)

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/meta-tiktok-x-join-eu-stress-test-german-election-2025-01-24/
    Click to expand...

    I predict a lot of failure.
     
    The European Union (EU) has actively enforced regulations on social media companies, resulting in significant fines for various violations.

    Facebook:

    • November 2024: The European Commission fined Meta €797.72 million for abusing its dominant position by tying its online classified ads service, Facebook Marketplace, to its social networking platform, Facebook.
      European Commission

    • May 2023: Meta was fined €1.2 billion by the Irish Data Protection Authority for transferring personal data of EU users to the United States without adequate safeguards, violating the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
      EDPB
    X
    January 2025:     The European Commission completed an investigation into X and is expected to impose a fine amounting to millions of euros for violations related to content moderation and compliance with EU regulations.
    Reuters

    • EU Digital Services Act (DSA):
      • The EU has labeled X as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) under the DSA, meaning it is subject to stricter obligations to combat disinformation, hate speech, and illegal content.
      • Compliance Audits: X recently failed to provide adequate transparency during an EU stress test, raising doubts about its ability to meet DSA requirements.
      • In Germany, authorities have highlighted concerns about X's moderation of hate speech and extremist content, both of which could directly influence election discourse.
      • In the United Kingdom, X has faced criticism from the Electoral Commission, which has called for greater transparency regarding political advertising and misinformation.
      • Regulatory bodies have raised concerns about decisions made under Musk's leadership, including staffing reductions in content moderation teams and a shift towards a subscription model for verified accounts, which critics argue could increase the spread of disinformation.
      • Musk's public interactions with political figures have also drawn criticism, further fueling worries about X’s neutrality during elections.
    • Potential Penalties:
      • Under the DSA, non-compliance can lead to fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover or even a temporary ban within the EU.
      • In Germany, the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) could impose additional fines for failing to remove illegal content within mandated timeframes.

    The heightened scrutiny reflects broader concerns about social media's role in democratic processes and the potential for foreign or domestic actors to exploit platforms like X to disrupt electoral integrity. Regulatory bodies have made it clear that compliance is non-negotiable, especially as elections approach across Europe.
     
    MT15 said:
    Click to expand...

    In this instance, I can understand the press being confused, because it's confusing.

    The faq I linked to in the other thread - https://www.opm.gov/fork/faq - does have this:

    Am I expected to work during the deferred resignation period?
    No. Except in rare cases determined by your agency, you are not expected to work.

    It similarly has:

    Can I accept another job after I submit my resignation but before my final resignation date?

    Nothing in the resignation letter prevents you from seeking outside work during the deferred resignation period. You should ask your agency's human resources team about what restrictions, if any, exist for employees who have resigned but remain employed (including on administrative leave) by their employing agency.

    Which is similarly vague, but overall it suggests that it's not just continuing to work remotely (except that for that "rare cases" clause), which means it would be in effect eight months pay for effectively leaving now. But it's a mess, it's not clear what would be enforceable practically.
     
    RobF said:
    In this instance, I can understand the press being confused, because it's confusing.

    The faq I linked to in the other thread - https://www.opm.gov/fork/faq - does have this:

    Am I expected to work during the deferred resignation period?
    No. Except in rare cases determined by your agency, you are not expected to work.

    It similarly has:

    Can I accept another job after I submit my resignation but before my final resignation date?

    Nothing in the resignation letter prevents you from seeking outside work during the deferred resignation period. You should ask your agency's human resources team about what restrictions, if any, exist for employees who have resigned but remain employed (including on administrative leave) by their employing agency.

    Which is similarly vague, but overall it suggests that it's not just continuing to work remotely (except that for that "rare cases" clause), which means it would be in effect eight months pay for effectively leaving now. But it's a mess, it's not clear what would be enforceable practically.
    Click to expand...

    Elon is massive liar. Also, weirdly that email is unsigned. Who sent it? It was at least based off of the twitter severance offer. Elon is being sued for not paying Twitter severance packages. You would have to be insane to trust a FAQ, when it's not in the offical documents langauge.

    I am certain of my decision to resign and my choice to resign is fully voluntary. I understand my employing agency will likely make adjustments in response to my resignation including moving, eliminating, consolidating, reassigning my position and tasks, reducing my official duties, and/or placing me on paid administrative leave until my resignation date.
    Click to expand...
     
    J-DONK said:
    Elon is massive liar. Also, weirdly that email is unsigned. Who sent it? It was at least based off of the twitter severance offer. Elon is being sued for not paying Twitter severance packages. You would have to be insane to trust a FAQ, when it's not in the offical documents langauge.
    Click to expand...
    Oh yeah, I wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw it, if I first printed it out and glued it onto a large boulder.

    Just saying, I think this is another example of the media struggling to cover something that's messy and, essentially, batshit crazy. Don't get me wrong, I think they should get a grip on it and stop trying to make sense of the senseless, but I get why it's a struggle.
     
    (CNN) — Journalists, including some at CBS News, are expressing alarm at reports that CBS parent company Paramount Global is trying to settle a legally dubious lawsuit lodged by President Donald Trump last fall.

    Trump sued CBS after an October “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris – Trump’s opponent in the presidential campaign – included an edit that Trump said was unfairly favorable to Harris.

    Despite legal experts’ widespread assertion that CBS’ editorial judgment was protected by the First Amendment, The New York Times Thursday night reported that a settlement was in the works.

    That sparked outage in CBS’ newsroom.

    “Trump’s lawsuit was a joke, but if we settle, we become the laughingstock,” a CBS correspondent said on condition of anonymity.

    CBS in October called the suit meritless and said at the time “we will vigorously defend against it.” A Paramount spokesperson on Friday declined to comment.

    A lawyer for Trump, Edward Paltzik, did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but he told The Times that “real accountability for CBS and Paramount will ensure that the president is compensated for the harm done to him.”

    The Times noted that “a settlement would be an extraordinary concession by a major U.S. media company to a sitting president, especially in a case in which there is no evidence that the network got facts wrong or damaged the plaintiff’s reputation.”……



    www.cnn.com

    CBS staff alarmed by reports of settlement talks with Trump over ‘60 Minutes’ Harris interview | CNN Business

    Journalists, including some at CBS News, are expressing alarm at reports that CBS parent company Paramount Global is trying to settle a legally dubious lawsuit lodged by President Donald Trump last fall.
    www.cnn.com www.cnn.com


     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom