Back to the basics: what determines the reliability of a media source or an individual story, and is it possible to give an objective reliability scor

[dismal]

Yes, this is among the infinity possible things that a news report could spend time on. But the thing about infinity is: so is everything else.

You notice that nothing of importance has come of the e-mail "scandal". The MSM was right to basically ignore it.

Well, I guess if that's the objective standard then I guess Trump's pussy grabbing comments and tax returns weren't news either.

Hold on there, buddy.

Trump's pussy grabbing was a thing he said he did. Journalism uses sources, especially primary sources and documentation to confirm news stories. In Trump's case, there was a video (documented evidence) of him saying he grabbed women by the pussy.

On the other hand, Obama did not have a fake birth certificate. He had a real one.

I'm starting to wonder if people's inability to read and comprehend basic English is a bigger problem than "fake news".

- - - Updated - - -

It seems like my original point was exactly that what is and isn't covered requires a subjective opinion and thus can't be done objectively. After all this you agree?

Nope, see how you switched it again? What I never disagreed with was your previous exact statement "the AMOUNT OF COVERAGE is subjective". I have not yet opined on whether "is or isn't" can be done objectively. I mean I suppose that 0% coverage is 'an amount' but I also don't think that ignoring stories completely puts you under the umbrella of responsible professional journalism. I don't know, why don't you make an argument that it can't be done objectively and convince me? Is a gay couple that gets turned down for a wedding cake news? (maybe locally). Same story goes all the way to federal court and has the potential to impact public policy? Definitely news.

BTW I responded to you to make the broader point that what is and isn't news is more of a function of HOW it is reported and less a function of 'if and to what extent'.

aa

Yes, 0 coverage is an amount of coverage. It's indeed the amount almost all of the infinite things that could be covered get.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, this is among the infinity possible things that a news report could spend time on. But the thing about infinity is: so is everything else.

You notice that nothing of importance has come of the e-mail "scandal". The MSM was right to basically ignore it.

Well, I guess if that's the objective standard then I guess Trump's pussy grabbing comments and tax returns weren't news either.

Hold on there, buddy.

Trump's pussy grabbing was a thing he said he did. Journalism uses sources, especially primary sources and documentation to confirm news stories. In Trump's case, there was a video (documented evidence) of him saying he grabbed women by the pussy.

On the other hand, Obama did not have a fake birth certificate. He had a real one.

I'm starting to wonder if people's inability to read and comprehend basic English is a bigger problem than "fake news".

Whatever basic English you weren't able to comprehend, feel free to ask questions about it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You notice that nothing of importance has come of the e-mail "scandal". The MSM was right to basically ignore it.

My point had abso-effing-lutely nothing whatever to do with Hillary's email scandal. It's an example. My point was what is and isn't on the news requires subjective editorial judgement. Hillary's email is one of an infinite number of things upon which news time can be spent. Feel free to substitute the birth of a panda at the San Diego zoo or a severe storm in Djibouti.

You are missing the point. This is a case of the Republicans crying wolf--and you remember what happened. Reporters are supposed to report News. Republican wolf-cries aren't something new.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

It seems like my original point was exactly that what is and isn't covered requires a subjective opinion and thus can't be done objectively. After all this you agree?

Nope, see how you switched it again? What I never disagreed with was your previous exact statement "the AMOUNT OF COVERAGE is subjective". I have not yet opined on whether "is or isn't" can be done objectively. I mean I suppose that 0% coverage is 'an amount' but I also don't think that ignoring stories completely puts you under the umbrella of responsible professional journalism. I don't know, why don't you make an argument that it can't be done objectively and convince me? Is a gay couple that gets turned down for a wedding cake news? (maybe locally). Same story goes all the way to federal court and has the potential to impact public policy? Definitely news.

BTW I responded to you to make the broader point that what is and isn't news is more of a function of HOW it is reported and less a function of 'if and to what extent'.

aa

Yes, 0 coverage is an amount of coverage. It's indeed the amount almost all of the infinite things that could be covered get.

What about the objectivity part? ESPN provided 0 coverage of the Hillary Clinton FBI investigation, yet they report the (sports) news and seem pretty objective to me?

aa

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, I guess if that's the objective standard then I guess Trump's pussy grabbing comments and tax returns weren't news either.

Has there been a previous case of a presidential candidate molesting women? No. It's news.

It's been a long time since a presidential candidate didn't release their tax returns. It's news.

Who'd have ever guessed "objectivity" = "ignoring that a candidate is under FBI investigation".

Not me. I wonder how we're going to know what's "objectively news" in advance.

Democratic presidents and presidential candidates have been under Republican "investigation" for decades now. That's not news.

 

[dismal]

My point had abso-effing-lutely nothing whatever to do with Hillary's email scandal. It's an example. My point was what is and isn't on the news requires subjective editorial judgement. Hillary's email is one of an infinite number of things upon which news time can be spent. Feel free to substitute the birth of a panda at the San Diego zoo or a severe storm in Djibouti.

You are missing the point. This is a case of the Republicans crying wolf--and you remember what happened. Reporters are supposed to report News. Republican wolf-cries aren't something new.

You're telling me the point I was trying to make when I brought up the Hillary FBI investigation now?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Has there been a previous case of a presidential candidate molesting women? No. It's news.

Seeing that Trump didn't have an inch of record to run on, his personality and business affairs was all that was to his campaign.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Has there been a previous case of a presidential candidate molesting women? No. It's news.

Seeing that Trump didn't have an inch of record to run on, his personality and business affairs was all that was to his campaign.

The media should have reported his sexual shenanigans anyway--important and not something most people knew of.

 

[RVonse]

The United States used to do it another way, sorta. The networks were expected to produce news as a public service, a sort of "payment" for the use of the public airwaves in addition to licensing fees. The Networks then treated the News as a lost leader. News had sponsors of course, but making a profit from news was not as paramount as it is today. This de-emphasis on profit, compared to today, let some damn good journalism through, not the least of which was the exposure of "Tailgunner" Joe McCarthy's witch trials and the mortal wounding of Red Scare of the 1950s.

+1 Agree with this. And this is the answer to Axulus OP.

We had real news in Walter Cronkite days and it all went away when Reagan discontinued the "fairness doctrine". The news actually worked back then and we need the "fairness doctrine" back again today. We also need to de-monopolize media and break them up into smaller pieces using anti trust regulation.

Which then begs the question, when society clearly learns that something has become much worse and non-functional than it was in the past......why are we so loath to change back again? Why can't we just go back to what worked in the past???? The Glass Seagall act also comes immediately to mind. Sometimes progress is NOT progress.

These are questions directed to you Axulus if you are still here.

Where did Axulus go? This is not the first time I have observed he starts a thread and then goes and hides from it.

As far as the "fairness doctrine" goes, I believe it was supposed to mandate that an EQUAL amount of time was given to each side of a news story to ensure no bias. I still don't get why can't that be done again?

Reward the broadcasters that tell the truth and put the liars out of business.

 

[RVonse]

Has there been a previous case of a presidential candidate molesting women? No. It's news.

Bill Clinton?

Democratic presidents and presidential candidates have been under Republican "investigation" for decades now. That's not news.

But wasn't she under FBI investigation? And isn't the FBI headed by Obama (democratic party)? And was not this a criminal investigation of a presidential candidate?

If that's not major news, I don't know what it would be.

The time to be finding out about whether a candidate is a criminal or not is before you go to the election booth.

 

[RVonse]

Has there been a previous case of a presidential candidate molesting women? No. It's news.

Seeing that Trump didn't have an inch of record to run on, his personality and business affairs was all that was to his campaign.

As it turned out, his campaign was almost entirely run on how Washington has jumped the shark and how he would fix it. And it turns out that that is what Americans wanted to hear.

 

[dismal]

Bill Clinton?

Democratic presidents and presidential candidates have been under Republican "investigation" for decades now. That's not news.

But wasn't she under FBI investigation? And isn't the FBI headed by Obama (democratic party)? And was not this a criminal investigation of a presidential candidate?

If that's not major news, I don't know what it would be.

Apparently you need to re-calibrate your is-it-news objectificator.

It's not like people could ever disagree on how much coverage something should get when we have such objective quantifications for such things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bill Clinton?

He wasn't actually accused of molesting, just of taking advantage of his position.

Democratic presidents and presidential candidates have been under Republican "investigation" for decades now. That's not news.

But wasn't she under FBI investigation? And isn't the FBI headed by Obama (democratic party)? And was not this a criminal investigation of a presidential candidate?

If that's not major news, I don't know what it would be.

The time to be finding out about whether a candidate is a criminal or not is before you go to the election booth.

On a stand-alone basis I would agree, it's news.

However, in context I don't consider it news. It's simply one of the eternal Republican investigations of Democrats in or possibly in the White House. As such, it's a case of crying wolf, not news.

 

[dismal]

He wasn't actually accused of molesting, just of taking advantage of his position.

Democratic presidents and presidential candidates have been under Republican "investigation" for decades now. That's not news.

But wasn't she under FBI investigation? And isn't the FBI headed by Obama (democratic party)? And was not this a criminal investigation of a presidential candidate?

If that's not major news, I don't know what it would be.

The time to be finding out about whether a candidate is a criminal or not is before you go to the election booth.

On a stand-alone basis I would agree, it's news.

However, in context I don't consider it news. It's simply one of the eternal Republican investigations of Democrats in or possibly in the White House. As such, it's a case of crying wolf, not news.

On the other hand, if there had been more coverage maybe people would realize that the FBI works for Obama and not Republicans.

Sometimes these objectively obvious things get a little tricky.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

He wasn't actually accused of molesting, just of taking advantage of his position.

Democratic presidents and presidential candidates have been under Republican "investigation" for decades now. That's not news.

But wasn't she under FBI investigation? And isn't the FBI headed by Obama (democratic party)? And was not this a criminal investigation of a presidential candidate?

If that's not major news, I don't know what it would be.

The time to be finding out about whether a candidate is a criminal or not is before you go to the election booth.

On a stand-alone basis I would agree, it's news.

However, in context I don't consider it news. It's simply one of the eternal Republican investigations of Democrats in or possibly in the White House. As such, it's a case of crying wolf, not news.

On the other hand, if there had been more coverage maybe people would realize that the FBI works for Obama and not Republicans.

Sometimes these objectively obvious things get a little tricky.

Really? Even though FBI Director Comey 'produced new evidence' 2 weeks prior to the election???

And we already have evidence that "liberal media" sources covered this topic very thoroughly and exactly when the news broke. Is there any conservative evidence that this topic was not covered to a satisfactory degree - particularly given that Trump won? Or that the FBI was in bed with Obama the whole time?

Someone get me a tinfoil hat!!

aa

 

[dismal]

He wasn't actually accused of molesting, just of taking advantage of his position.

Democratic presidents and presidential candidates have been under Republican "investigation" for decades now. That's not news.

But wasn't she under FBI investigation? And isn't the FBI headed by Obama (democratic party)? And was not this a criminal investigation of a presidential candidate?

If that's not major news, I don't know what it would be.

The time to be finding out about whether a candidate is a criminal or not is before you go to the election booth.

On a stand-alone basis I would agree, it's news.

However, in context I don't consider it news. It's simply one of the eternal Republican investigations of Democrats in or possibly in the White House. As such, it's a case of crying wolf, not news.

On the other hand, if there had been more coverage maybe people would realize that the FBI works for Obama and not Republicans.

Sometimes these objectively obvious things get a little tricky.

Really? Even though FBI Director Comey 'produced new evidence' 2 weeks prior to the election???

And we already have evidence that "liberal media" sources covered this topic very thoroughly and exactly when the news broke. Is there any conservative evidence that this topic was not covered to a satisfactory degree - particularly given that Trump won? Or that the FBI was in bed with Obama the whole time?

Someone get me a tinfoil hat!!

aa

O, great Objective News gods please grant my prayer that the appointment of Comey as FBI director was objectively newsy enough that it was covered by your objective news outlets!

Behold!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/us/politics/obama-to-pick-james-b-comey-to-lead-fbi.html

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

He wasn't actually accused of molesting, just of taking advantage of his position.

Democratic presidents and presidential candidates have been under Republican "investigation" for decades now. That's not news.

But wasn't she under FBI investigation? And isn't the FBI headed by Obama (democratic party)? And was not this a criminal investigation of a presidential candidate?

If that's not major news, I don't know what it would be.

The time to be finding out about whether a candidate is a criminal or not is before you go to the election booth.

On a stand-alone basis I would agree, it's news.

However, in context I don't consider it news. It's simply one of the eternal Republican investigations of Democrats in or possibly in the White House. As such, it's a case of crying wolf, not news.

On the other hand, if there had been more coverage maybe people would realize that the FBI works for Obama and not Republicans.

Sometimes these objectively obvious things get a little tricky.

Really? Even though FBI Director Comey 'produced new evidence' 2 weeks prior to the election???

And we already have evidence that "liberal media" sources covered this topic very thoroughly and exactly when the news broke. Is there any conservative evidence that this topic was not covered to a satisfactory degree - particularly given that Trump won? Or that the FBI was in bed with Obama the whole time?

Someone get me a tinfoil hat!!

aa

O, great Objective News gods please grant my prayer that the appointment of Comey as FBI director was objectively newsy enough that it was covered by your objective news outlets!

Behold!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/us/politics/obama-to-pick-james-b-comey-to-lead-fbi.html

I'm not exactly positive why a news article from 2013 is relevant to the 2016 election year, but FYI:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/2/obama-rips-fbi-director-james-comey-over-hillary-c/

The FBI is supposed to be impartial regardless of who is in office. Do you actually have a point? Or did you almost vomit having to quote a "librul media" source instead of a back patting Faux News article that confirms what you already have an opinion on?

aa

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seeing that Trump didn't have an inch of record to run on, his personality and business affairs was all that was to his campaign.

As it turned out, his campaign was almost entirely run on how Washington has jumped the shark and how that he would fix it.

FIFY

 

[dismal]

He wasn't actually accused of molesting, just of taking advantage of his position.

Democratic presidents and presidential candidates have been under Republican "investigation" for decades now. That's not news.

But wasn't she under FBI investigation? And isn't the FBI headed by Obama (democratic party)? And was not this a criminal investigation of a presidential candidate?

If that's not major news, I don't know what it would be.

The time to be finding out about whether a candidate is a criminal or not is before you go to the election booth.

On a stand-alone basis I would agree, it's news.

However, in context I don't consider it news. It's simply one of the eternal Republican investigations of Democrats in or possibly in the White House. As such, it's a case of crying wolf, not news.

On the other hand, if there had been more coverage maybe people would realize that the FBI works for Obama and not Republicans.

Sometimes these objectively obvious things get a little tricky.

Really? Even though FBI Director Comey 'produced new evidence' 2 weeks prior to the election???

And we already have evidence that "liberal media" sources covered this topic very thoroughly and exactly when the news broke. Is there any conservative evidence that this topic was not covered to a satisfactory degree - particularly given that Trump won? Or that the FBI was in bed with Obama the whole time?

Someone get me a tinfoil hat!!

aa

O, great Objective News gods please grant my prayer that the appointment of Comey as FBI director was objectively newsy enough that it was covered by your objective news outlets!

Behold!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/us/politics/obama-to-pick-james-b-comey-to-lead-fbi.html

I'm not exactly positive why a news article from 2013 is relevant to the 2016 election year, but FYI:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/2/obama-rips-fbi-director-james-comey-over-hillary-c/

The FBI is supposed to be impartial regardless of who is in office. Do you actually have a point? Or did you almost vomit having to quote a "librul media" source instead of a back patting Faux News article that confirms what you already have an opinion on?

aa

Sorry man it's an objective fact from objective news outlets that Comey worked for Obama. And you know what's supposed to happen when all the objective facts are out. It's objectively time to stop.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

On the other hand, if there had been more coverage maybe people would realize that the FBI works for Obama and not Republicans.

Sometimes these objectively obvious things get a little tricky.

Law enforcement is almost always on the side of the Republicans no matter which party is in power.