General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe award for Best Impeachment Coverage goes to The New York Times -- here's why.
Some of that was details that viewers wouldnt know by just watching, such as when Cochrane wrote, This is now Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, and just two Democrats will be left. Many of the members in the audience have left, but Mark Meadows, a key Trump ally, and Carolyn Maloney, who hopes to take permanent control of the Oversight committee, are among those still here.
Another example is when Schmidt wrote, Just a reminder: John Ratcliffe, the Republican who raised objections to (Rep. Adam) Schiff, was Trumps pick to be the director of national intelligence the same position that played a pivotal role in the whistle-blowers complaint being held up before it was sent to Congress.
But the commentary was at its very best when it was describing a detail or fact, or offering some context that perhaps readers werent familiar with, such as when Haberman wrote, Mulvaneys press conference in which he conceded there was a quid pro quo continues to be problematic for the president. Its been raised a few times during this hearing, and was just now with (Rep. Eric) Swalwell to (George) Kent.
https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2019/the-award-for-best-impeachment-coverage-goes-to-the-new-york-times-heres-why/
brooklynite
(94,553 posts)OliverQ
(3,363 posts)They're doing a lot of damage to journalism and this country by giving weak headlines and articles to how serious things are. They also hired Ken Vogel.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)Reuters Reporter Roasted for Panning Lack of Fireworks, Quoting Eric Trump in Impeachment Coverage: A Guided Tour Through Media Dysfunctions
The first day of impeachment hearings of President Donald Trump included hours of detailed, sworn testimony of his alleged misconduct and a stunning new revelation about his extortion efforts on Ukraine, but because the proceedings lacked fireworks and began without a bang, Reuters reporter Jeff Mason panned the historic moment as dull and quoted a tweet from the presidents own son, Eric, who unsurprisingly dismissed the hearings as horribly boring.
Masons arch, drama-critic review of the Congressional hearings ignited fast and fierce pushback from journalists and politicians alike, and his similarly cavalier tweet about the story was quickly called out by thousands of angry replies.
Link to tweet
Mason, who is the former president of the White House Correspondents Association, fell victim to several journalistic bad habits, critics charged, from dueling-soundbites framing to clichéd reality TV analogies to a supposedly savvy meta-focus on the optics, instead of the substance, of the political moment.
</snip>
crickets
(25,979 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Maggie Haberman tends to be cautious about any negative stuff re: trump, people are often not happy with her remarks.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)Some times the diversity is within one reporter. Yesterday someone was panning chuck todd. When I heard him on NBC Nightly News, a big audience then, was, [best as I remember], Todd said, the Democrats moved forward with important 'new information.'
Raftergirl
(1,285 posts)headlines on the inquiry.
Behind a Star Witness, Democrats Take Their Impeachment Case to the Public
Impeachment Hearings Open With Revelation on Trumps Ukraine Pressure
The NYT isnt Breitbart or Fox News.
UpInArms
(51,283 posts)NYTs piece of propaganda by Ken Vogel into the record
https://www.mediaite.com/news/nyts-ken-vogel-gets-dragged-for-pushing-debunked-joe-biden-ukraine-story/
Vogel was lambasted on Twitter by users who saw this as a repeat of the newspapers focus on Trump-fed smears like the debunked Hillary Clinton Uranium One story.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)UpInArms
(51,283 posts)After I realized they were supplying weapons to both sides ...
The Judith Miller propaganda that propelled the Bush/Cheney lies ...
And the last straw was Ken Vogels propaganda piece ...
During the impeachment hearing yesterday, the republicans wanted that article put in the record ...
So, for me, that was their coverage ... they get to go in the records of Congress with their misinformation that they left up for 4 days after it was debunked...
That is my opinion... you are welcome to yours ...
Thanks for asking
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Or the Poynter article in the OP.
Thanks for answering.
I'll probably stick with the journalists on my Twitter list, here @ DU and of course, the live stream from (preferably) C-Span.
The more the merrier. It's must-see TV, don'tcha know.