"Agreeing on One Thing"; robrogers.com, 9/11/16

Rob Rogers; "Agreeing on One Thing"

Hillary Clinton Gets Gored; New York Times, 9/5/16

Paul Krugman, New York Times; Hillary Clinton Gets Gored:

"So I would urge journalists to ask whether they are reporting facts or simply engaging in innuendo, and urge the public to read with a critical eye. If reports about a candidate talk about how something “raises questions,” creates “shadows,” or anything similar, be aware that these are all too often weasel words used to create the impression of wrongdoing out of thin air.

And here’s a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate’s character are to look at what he or she has actually done, and what policies he or she is proposing. Mr. Trump’s record of bilking students, stiffing contractors and more is a good indicator of how he’d act as president; Mrs. Clinton’s speaking style and body language aren’t. George W. Bush’s policy lies gave me a much better handle on who he was than all the up-close-and-personal reporting of 2000, and the contrast between Mr. Trump’s policy incoherence and Mrs. Clinton’s carefulness speaks volumes today.

In other words, focus on the facts. America and the world can’t afford another election tipped by innuendo."

Gawker's downfall is a 'scary prospect for journalists'; Washington Post, 8/19/16

[Video] Paul Farhi and Margaret Sullivan, Washington Post; Gawker's downfall is a 'scary prospect for journalists' :

"The news and gossip site Gawker.com is shuttering after a lengthy court battle with former professional wrestling star Hulk Hogan, who was secretly backed by Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel. The Post's Margaret Sullivan and Paul Farhi look at Gawker's legacy and how this could be a dangerous precedent for news critics."

Recruiting Leslie Jones May Have Been a Cynical Move for NBC, But Damn Is She Making Their Coverage Better; Slate, 8/18/16

David Canfield, Slate; Recruiting Leslie Jones May Have Been a Cynical Move for NBC, But Damn Is She Making Their Coverage Better:

"In 2016, regular contributors on NBC’s Olympics team have shown little interest in departing from the network’s standard narratives. Inadvertently or not, their default styles of commentary have sometimes marginalized the accomplishments of American women, people of color, and LGBTQ people...

Jones, meanwhile, fixates on Biles’ pure athleticism. “She is … BAD,” she said, awestruck, after watching Biles win a gold medal. “Whew! She’s a flipper.” (She also shrieked at full force during one of Biles’ routines.) And she has similarly applauded the skills of Gabby Douglas—Biles’ Gold Medal-winning predecessor. Her enthusiasm is boundless: “Michael Phelps is a BEAST!” she yelled after seeing Phelps take gold. Amid a lineup of cookie-cutter correspondents in Rio, her passion is contagious, her style uniquely candid. She’s a perfect proxy for the rest of us watching the games at home. Since arriving in Rio, she has been delivering NBC’s messages with the kind of authenticity and energy that the network had been otherwise unable to muster. She relays genuine interest in every event. She gives “harmless nationalism” some spike."

Why Are The Media Obsessed With Trump's Controversies And Not Clinton's?; NPR, 8/11/16

Ron Elving, NPR; Why Are The Media Obsessed With Trump's Controversies And Not Clinton's? :

"The question is repeated in one form or another millions of times a day in social media and random conversation. It comes primarily from the backers of Donald Trump, but also from others — including the simply curious:

Why are the media obsessed with Trump's controversies and not Clinton's?"

The (alleged) Russian hack of the DNC should be one of the biggest stories of the year. Why isn’t it?; Washington Post, 7/26/16

Paul Waldman, Washington Post; The (alleged) Russian hack of the DNC should be one of the biggest stories of the year. Why isn’t it? :

"...[T]here’s something utterly bizarre about the kind of coverage this story is getting. Evidence currently suggests that the Russian government may have attempted to sway the results of the U.S. presidential election. I put that in italics, because it ought to be in screaming 72-point headlines on every front page in America. And yet, it’s being treated like just one more odd story in a wacky election year, not much more important than the latest fundraising numbers or which ethnic group Donald Trump has insulted most recently...

That being said, this hack represents something profoundly different from what we’ve seen before. We’ve known that foreign intelligence services from countries like China and Russia have in the past attempted to infiltrate not only government networks but those of other political organizations and actors, like the parties. What distinguishes this attack is that it wasn’t just for the purposes of surveillance. They weren’t trying to figure out what Americans are up to, they were trying to intervene to change the results of our election. Goldsmith suggests some even more frightening possibilities:

What if the hackers interspersed fake but even more damning or inflammatory emails that were hard to disprove? What if hackers break in to computers to steal or destroy voter registration information? What if they disrupted computer-based voting or election returns in important states during the presidential election? The legitimacy of a presidential election might be called into question, with catastrophic consequences. The DNC hack is just the first wave of possible threats to electoral integrity in the United States—by foreign intelligence services, and others.

For all we know, the DNC hack was a trial run for something much more ambitious."

"Tragic Coverage"; robrogers.com, 7/17/16

robrogers.com; "Tragic Coverage"

In the age of Donald Trump, is it time to revisit media ethics?; Washington Post, 7/11/16

Robert Gebelhoff, Washington Post; In the age of Donald Trump, is it time to revisit media ethics? :

"Still, the questions the media needs to consider go beyond election coverage. How much weight should news outlets give reader interest when deciding what to cover? If a story — about Cecil the lion or the color of a dress, for example — generates a lot of discussion, is the media obligated to spend as much time on it as other, more pressing content? And if readers don’t seem to be interested in a story with substance — such as the civil war in Yemen, for example — should outlets assign it fewer resources?

These aren’t new questions by any means, but they become more important as newsrooms shrink and the demand for coverage increases. How will the changing media landscape impact the quality of content? Will important coverage fall through the cracks, especially at the local level? To what extent should consumers be held accountable for how journalism has been transformed?"

Stop normalizing Trump: He’s conditioned reporters to treat crazy nonsense as routine; Salon, 5/25/16

Simon Maloy, Salon; Stop normalizing Trump: He’s conditioned reporters to treat crazy nonsense as routine:

"Again, we’re talking about one candidate backhandedly making the allegation that his opponent was an accessory to murder, and the press reaction is “boy, that Trump sure can drive headlines – better watch out, Hillary!”

This is precisely what I was talking about I wrote earlier this month about the danger in normalizing Trump. He wants all the craziness to be taken in stride, and he’s succeeding. He’s being abetted in this by a Republican Party establishment that is happy to bite its tongue so long as they get their tax cuts and conservative judicial nominations. But that’s no reason for the press to buy into Trump’s game and treat his crazy mudslinging as a mere campaign tactic rather than a disqualifying character flaw."