The next time someone tells you CNN is worthless

[Guest]

Just show them this clip. It is interviews like these that make me appreciate real journalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjSeAVB2gqs

Jake Tapper hosts Rep. Jim Jordan and lets him rant on and on with these ridiculous, debunked talking points, and then categorically refutes each and everyone one of them while Jordan keeps trying to talk over him or change the subject.

Chris Cuomo recently debunked McCarthy's claim that the FBI "broke into" Trump campaign. McCarthy was ranting this lunacy on FOX News without a single objection from their host.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxMGJVjN2W0

[_subgenius]

that's not journalism, that's talking heads or debate at best. You have a funny idea about what journalism is defined as.

[Guest]

A job of an investigative journalist isn't just to report on events but to correct falsehoods. Unlike the mentality at FOX News, their job isn't to just allow public office holders to rant endlessly in falsehoods that we know are not true. This is why FOX News is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the Republican party. CNN is constantly trying to be fair by criticizing those on the Left and Right when they get things wrong. CNN constantly allowing the GOP to control the media narrative about Hillary's emails in 2016 is a result of them trying to be impartial. But FOX News doesn't even try.

Tapper did his job as a journalist by reporting the facts in the form of rebuttal, whereas Jordan was just hoping to use his airtime to ramble off as many GOP talking points as he could. This is why they absolutely hate and attack CNN and slink back into their safety bubble known as FOX News, where they make it a point to avoid Chris Wallace at all costs.

I especially liked the part where he insists the whistle blower wasn't a first hand witness, therefore he didn't matter. When Tapper said he didn't have to be a first hand witness, Jordan resurrects a debunked conspiracy theory about how the rules on that were suddenly changed just prior to the whistle blower's complaint. It is astonishing that he would be relying on a fake news piece by the Federalist instead of his own experience dealing with whistle blower complaints. I mean, he's an elected official who should know better. So why didn't he? I think he did know better, but was knowingly lying because in their view, the end justifies the means.

[_Icarus]

Five Core Principles of Journalism

1. Truth and Accuracy

Journalists cannot always guarantee ‘truth’, but getting the facts right is the cardinal principle of journalism. We should always strive for accuracy, give all the relevant facts we have and ensure that they have been checked. When we cannot corroborate information we should say so.

2. Independence

Journalists must be independent voices; we should not act, formally or informally, on behalf of special interests whether political, corporate or cultural. We should declare to our editors – or the audience – any of our political affiliations, financial arrangements or other personal information that might constitute a conflict of interest.

3. Fairness and Impartiality

Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece, stories should be balanced and add context. Objectivity is not always possible, and may not always be desirable (in the face for example of brutality or inhumanity), but impartial reporting builds trust and confidence.

4. Humanity

Journalists should do no harm. What we publish or broadcast may be hurtful, but we should be aware of the impact of our words and images on the lives of others.

5. Accountability

A sure sign of professionalism and responsible journalism is the ability to hold ourselves accountable. When we commit errors we must correct them and our expressions of regret must be sincere not cynical. We listen to the concerns of our audience. We may not change what readers write or say but we will always provide remedies when we are unfair.

https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/White House ... journalism

=====================================

Society of Professional Journalism Code of Ethics

[_subgenius]

Five Core Principles of Journalism

oh goody! an arbitrary set of guidelines that are non binding and completely optional.

3. Fairness and Impartiality

Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece,

keywords = no obligation.

Great sidebar Icarus but what does that have to do with a journalist "becoming the story" by engaing in a debate with someone they are asking questions to?

Is it good journalism for a journalist to contradict or confirm the responses of someone they are interviewing?

I guess that makes Oprah, Maury, and Ali G journalists in your book.

But thanks for the superficial appeal to authority with you whole "ethic" list post...as if adherence to it or denial of it affords anyone a press pass.

[_Icarus]

Not surprised you're attacking journalistic ethics, given your preference for fake news and conspiracy theories. The fact that you think it is good journalism to let a lying politician spew out misinformation at a record pace unchallenged explains why you prefer FOX News.

While CNN and other legit new outlets are doing the world a service by outing the liars in office, FOX News is sponsoring yet another fake outrage over a manufactured crisis.

Back in 2014, well before Trump got elected or was even considered a viable candidate, a 7 second clip of his cameo in the movie "Home Alone 2" was edited out by a TV station in Canada. This is a normal practice for virtually all featured films being televised because they need to make time for commercials. But some MAGA head caught wind of it over the holidays and passed this "news" up the chain of ignorance in Right Wing hysteria where it quickly became "breaking news" for the likes of FOX News and Brietbart.

Nothing says hilarious "hair fire" hysteria like these folks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRZabCVmmJY

[_honorentheos]

Great sidebar Icarus but what does that have to do with a journalist "becoming the story" by engaing in a debate with someone they are asking questions to?

Is it good journalism for a journalist to contradict or confirm the responses of someone they are interviewing?

Challenging statements that are contradicted by evidence or ambiguous is essential to journalism, subbie. Part of the job is to dig into the facts. Next you'll be telling us every article should start with "The dictionary defines..." like journalism is the same thing as a youth sacrament meeting talk.

[_Dr Exiled]

CNN and the other media utterly failed with respect to russiagate. Lack of objectivity is a consequence to taking sides politically, like FOX news has done for some time. I think you might like this article by Matt Taibbi from the Rolling Stone where he muses about the media failures with russiagate and how there probably won't be any consequences. Here it the link:

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

He accuses the media, including CNN, of being basically tabloids, not concerned about facts or verifying their reporting. Fox is part of this too, although he doesn't discuss their shortcomings because russiagate was about attacking Fox's team. From the article:

This has been a consistent pattern throughout #Russiagate. Step one: salacious headline. Step two, days or weeks later: news emerges the story is shakier than first believed. Step three (in the best case) involves the story being walked back or retracted by the same publication.

That’s been rare. More often, when explosive #Russiagate headlines go sideways, the original outlets simply ignore the new development, leaving the “retraction” process to conservative outlets that don’t reach the original audiences.

This is a major structural flaw of the new fully-divided media landscape in which Republican media covers Democratic corruption and Democratic media covers Republican corruption. If neither “side” feels the need to disclose its own errors and inconsistencies, mistakes accumulate quickly.

This has been the main reportorial difference between Russiagate and the WMD affair. Despite David Remnick’s post-invasion protestations that “nobody got [WMD] completely right,” the Iraq war was launched against the objections of the 6 million or more people who did get it right, and protested on the streets. There was open skepticism of Bush claims dotting the press landscape from the start, with people like Jack Shafer tearing apart every Judith Miller story in print. Most reporters are Democrats and the people hawking the WMD story were mostly Republicans, so there was at least some political space for protest.

Russiagate happened in an opposite context. If the story fell apart it would benefit Donald Trump politically, a fact that made a number of reporters queasy about coming forward. #Russiagate became synonymous with #Resistance, which made public skepticism a complicated proposition.

Hence, the problem with having "news" organizations taking political sides instead of merely finding out what happened and reporting it.

Here are some examples of where CNN fell flat in their reporting on russiagate:

CNN has its own separate sub-list of wrecks. Three of the network’s journalists resigned after a story purporting to tie Trump advisor Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund was retracted. Four more CNN reporters (Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper and Brian Rokus) were bylined in a story that claimed Comey was expected to refute Trump’s claims he was told he wasn’t the target of an investigation. Comey blew that one up, too.

In another CNN scoop gone awry, “Email pointed Trump campaign to WikiLeaks documents,” the network’s reporters were off by ten days in a “bombshell” that supposedly proved the Trump campaign had foreknowledge of Wikileaks dumps. “It’s, uh, perhaps not as significant as what we know now,” offered CNN’s Manu Raju in a painful on-air retraction.

[_Icarus]

Your example only goes to strengthen the point that CNN is really nothing like FOX News. It is refreshing to know that when someone gets something wrong, the organization they work for will punish them for it. You have to go back 2 1/2 years to find something where CNN "messed up" but that wasn't what this is about. Even with this example, it appears to be something CNN corrected itself within 24 hrs of it being published online and it quickly disciplined those who were involved. This was CNN's statement:

On June 22, 2017, CNN.com published a story connecting Anthony Scaramucci with investigations into the Russian Direct Investment Fund.

That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted. Links to the story have been disabled. CNN apologizes to Mr. Scaramucci.

Scaramucci responded via Twitter: Anthony Scaramucci Retweeted CNN "@CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on."

Meanwhile, FOX won't be self reporting mistakes or retracting virtually half of their daily output that would never pass basic journalistic guidelines. In terms of integrity, FOX won't be firing Sean Hannity for propagating Alex Jones' conspiracy theories such as the one about Sandy Hook being a false flag operation. Nor will there be any firing of Tucker Carlson for calling white supremacy a hoax. No firing of Jeannine Pirro or any number of FOX employees who openly violate their own corporate policies forbidding them from campaigning for political candidates. Your "whataboutism" if weak here.

[_Dr Exiled]

I still don't trust CNN or any of the other media. They have all succumbed to the FOX model of taking sides politically and have lost their objectivity. Sure, FOX is out there and caters to the religious, so there is probably more faith based reasoning over there. However, politics and religion are so close and CNN still favors one side because that is where the business model seems to be.