Now a 100% far right wing channel, CNN’s ratings have tanked below Newsmax.
Good job Licht.
I hope shareholders sue Licht for billions, just like they are at Fox that also compromised their journalistic integrity to appease the rapidly shrinking MAGA crowd.

...and since am already here...

we don't know the details, yet. but seeing how this comes along with the Pelosi attack, it does make one wonder. what if? that, this and after Jan 6 - it'd make anyone gun-shy (wingnut-wise)

also, would contend that it makes little sense to start the comment w/logic and reason (am w/ya on 'let's wait') but then follow with phAWK noo-ze 🦜 nonsense...

...but the audaciously of complaining about anyone hiding in a basement...Cruz and the not-so-great Pumpkin...is too Goebbelesque to be believed.

getit 'tho. just following what they tell you. 🦊or want to believe.


Tangentially, makes a person wonder 'bout Lake's stability. as a newscaster, one would think she'd be interested in some level of journalistic integrity. if she is unable to discern fact from folly - she wasn't trustworthy at her former job. so why trust her a governorship?!! she's more of an actor than a producer.

Eh, at some point very early on, Stelter should have realized the man had a genuine complaint. He really wasn't being listened to. If someone questioned my integrity like that I would lay out my research process bare and say "We do get it wrong sometimes, and it's important to acknowledge and correct it when we do, but we also don't always get that perfect! But we're willing to make corrections when we have it wrong. That is paramount to becoming a trusted source of information."


That sentiment seems far from conception here, which is concerning. If he's going to laugh off what seemed like a very sober book salesman...who accuses him of not listening...and he just laughs and barely recognizes the accusation for what it is...

His journalistic integrity was being called into question by a man wanting to be taken seriously. He should have said - "Pick a story we got wrong and show me where we're mixed up."


Or maybe an analogy; if you got pulled over and the cop in the window said "You don't have a license!" You'd probably just pull your license out to prove you had it. You wouldn't just laugh at him. (scenario requires a response here to illustrate the point, police are not part of the metaphor)

PS
And I understand that he's not actually levying anything but a cursory very generalized complaint. It's just, whatever he thinks the show gets wrong over and over, i believe he believes it and was being serious.

OK, the actual statement made by Melania's camp (as seen on screen at 1:10):
"I don't believe Mrs. Trump has ever discussed her thoughts on anything with Mr. Giuliani."

That's a pretty significant nudge. To me, pretty clearly says "don't put words in my mouth". You can infer it as "don't put words in my mouth, you weaselly little prick", but the statement itself is pretty carefully reserved in the exact wording.

Newsworthy? Sure. But to me, I think a good journalist (and I'd usually include Anderson Cooper in that camp) should show the statement itself, without any opinion or commentary first, and then make a distinct segue showing that we're now moving into pundit's reactions and opinions.

The lead here was "First Lady Melania Trump's Office Fires Back at Rudy Giuliani Over His Remarks About Stormy Daniels". That just seems a bit clickbait-y to me. "Fires Back" requires reading between the lines of the statement itself. Accurate? Probably. But I think they should have honored the carefully worded nature of the actual statement and gone with something like ..."Responds to" instead of "Fires Back".

Furthermore, they should have kept the full text of the statement itself up on the screen during the whole reaction/opinion portion segment where Cooper and the other talking heads discuss things. By all means, discuss. I even mostly agree with their interpretations and take on the situation. But keep the text of the actual statement up so that viewers can decide for themselves.


The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was actually fantastic for hoisting people on their own petard by fairly and accurately showing their actual statements and reacting to them -- no bait and switch / obfuscation necessary. Stewart's kind of subtlety in pointing out contradictions and bullshit was awesome.

I guess I feel like the best response to Trump's "Fake News" shtick is to be doubly rigorous when it comes to journalistic integrity. Trump's gonna give you plenty of ammo to use against him. Use it, but do it in such a way that any allegations of bias or unfairness are clearly wrong.

@kir_mokum

what makes the irony even more grotesque is that:

1.look at who projectveritas actually IS.it was founded by that slug james o'keefe..yes..THAT james o'keefe,and due to CNN being such an absolute failure of journalistic integrity,they just made that repulsive man actually credible again.

2.CNN had to post a massive retraction,a formal editors note and a at least three correspondents had to fall on the sword.

3.the projectveritas video has a CNN producer openly admitting that it is about the ratings,and nothing more.the russia story makes CNN money....period.

4.there is STILL no evidence of the trump administration "colluding" with russian intelligence,but there IS evidence that the russia story is being pushed by the american "deep state" to discredit,and/or control trump.

*of course this is from independent media who are not part of the corporate media tentacled network of obfuscation,propaganda and gaslighting.

5.the only media still giving the russia story any credence is american media.the rest of the world has moved on.why? no evidence.

this whole situation stinks to high fucking heaven.

@newtboy
i agree in theory,but disagree in practice.
as i stated in my comment:discernment.

it appears we approach news and journalism differently.

i do not consume the institution,but rather the individual reporter.which is why i will watch a report by shepard smith from FOX,but ignore anything by tucker carlson or bill o'reilly.

the HUGE mistake you make about hedges,is just that,an assumption.

chris hedges mistake.
is the same mistake that other media personalities have made,such as cenk uynger when he was on MSNBC.

hedges criticized power.
in fact,in the run up to the iraq war hedges was pushing out story after story that was highly critical of the bush administration,and..ironically..was using the very intelligence reports that you mentioned.he was challenged by the new york times editorial board to either cease and desist,or face disciplinary action.

he chose to retain his integrity,and honor his father (great story right there,he always chokes up when telling it) and walked away from a successful career,full of adulation and respect,rather than bow at the foot of the kings throne and kiss the feet of the powerful.

the man has guts,in spades,and i admire him very much.

but if you think my opnion is biased,then let us take phil donahue who was hosting the most popular show on the newly founded MSNBC.

he too,was critical of the bush administration and had guests on that were countering the avalanche of white house narratives flooding the cable news networks.

he was fired,while simultaneously hosting the most popular and highest rated shows on MSNBC.

what i am saying,is exactly what hedges is saying:
criticize power and you will be branded,blacklisted and shunned from the "mainstream media".you will be relegated to the fringe for your defiance to power.

/chuckles..i find it interesting that pretty much everybody uses the term "mainstream media" to epitomize:lazy journalism,propaganda,fake news and yet the media THEY choose to consume..well...thats not mainstream at all.the media THEY choose to consume is top notch journalism.

i am not saying my choices are right,but i do choose them carefully.i do not subscribe to institutions but rather individuals who have proven the test of proper journalistic integrity:chris hedges,matt taibbi,bill moyers,henry giroux,laura poitrus,jeremy scahill,amy goodman,paul jay

you may notice that every one of these people are critical of power,and that..my friend..is the basic premise of the fourth estate.

the washington post,along with the new york times and wall street journal have become rags.just my opinion,feel free to disagree.

You're right but the advantage Corbyn has is that we don't have a Trump character. Not only has Farage quit, Boris sunk his own career in a party of backstabbers, but we had our personality politics moment and I think people are past it.

The papers won't tell you that; our 8 billionaires will pull out every stop to convince the great unwashed that he's dangerous. The papers will tell you every day right up until a general election that he will lead Labour into electoral oblivion, even as thousands pack out halls in unprecedented showings of support in northern "racist" (according to MSM) towns. They'll tell you they won't win from UKIP and be out of power for 20 years.

I'm not saying he WILL win a GE because the playing field is not level, the game is not fair. Boundary changes will play right into Tory hands and the character assassinations will only increase, but if ANYONE has a chance of winning for Labour it's Corbyn. Owen Smith hasn't a hope in hell of getting MORE votes than Corbyn would, at an election.

The only way to win is by going with Corbyn but I fear that there are influential ex and current MPs who are sabotaging the campaign because this wave of populism and people power would not be beneficial to their future prosperity.

We are living in a post-truth world right now, with journalistic integrity at an all time low. A window was broken in the stairwell of a building where a Corbyn-Labour rival has an office, and it was splashed all over the news that it was a violent, thuggish Corbyn supporter just like they all are. There was no evidence and they even lied about the facts, which has been reported on twitter and by smaller news sources, but the damage is already done, throw enough shit and some of it will stick.

As Lyndon Johnson says - I know it didn't happen, but let's make the bastard deny it. Oh and apologies for shameless derailment.

On topic:
Is Schieffer making the usual mistake here? "It's not the left she needs to worry about, it's the middle." Taking the left for granted is what happened to Labour in the last 10-15 years and seen their support die pre-Corbyn. Dunno how it is in USA but over here the left have had to hold their noses and vote for a candidate who doesn't represent them at all and they're getting sick of it. So thanks to the internet when they finally see the cracks forming they recoil in horror at how they've been undermined from the inside from day one; why should they ever vote for that again?

Fuck gamergate. They are not, never have and never will be about "ethics in journalism".

They are straight-up misogynistic assholes that make me ashamed to be associated with an art medium/hobby that I've been involved with for over 30 years.

Let's just put this in context. They claim they are against the collusion of game companies and journalists.

First up, the specific instance they targeted was not a conflict of interest. There are absolutely, undoubtedly, HUGE collusions between game reviewers and games, but gg ignored all those because they were for AAA mainstream games that gg likes and instead accused journalists of giving higher review scores to indie games.

Here's a fucking hint: go read some movie reviews, and tell me if you see movie critics favouring indie movies over blockbusters. Of course they do. People who are seriously into something almost always prefer a niche product. See also: craft beer vs budweiser, restaurants vs McDonalds, etc. I could go on.

But here's the cheery on the big cake of poo.

When a games journalist dared to express an opinion against an otherwise well-reviewed game*, what did gamergate do? Applaud their journalistic integrity in offering a dissenting opinion?

Nope: they started a fucking campaign to get the game company to blacklist the reviewer.

The hypocrisy is simply staggering.

And I haven't even mentioned the doxing, the rape threats and so on.

Once again, fuck gamergate. Frankly, they're on a par with the KKK as far as I'm concerned.


* polygon gave Bayonetta 2 a score of 7.5/10 because the reviewer felt it was juvenille and over sexualised. gg started a campaign to get nintendo to block polygon. Nintendo, to their credit, ignored the little fucktards.

For a critical analysis of these issues with journalistic integrity..

I refer you all to Ms. Liana K

http://videosift.com/video/Liana-Kerzner-An-Honest-Look-At-Women-in-Games

Enjoy

I'm curious why this is being described as a racially motivated attack. Just because the assailant was ignorant of his own state's law(s) and an idiot doesn't make him a racist. He may very well be a racist but that can hardly be determined from a silent video; just because the man he tackled is black, doesn't mean the victim couldn't have just as easily been a Caucasian (or Asian, Hispanic, etc.)

I understand the current racial tensions and situation in the US is pretty volatile right now, but not every act of black-on-white or white-on-black violence is racially motivated. By making these assumptions and posting them as facts (e.g. dailykos website), all it does it stir the pot even more and shows a huge lack of journalistic integrity.

Unless there is evidence to suggest that Mr Foster, the assailant, targeted Mr Daniels, the grandfather, because he was a black man carrying a firearm then people should treat it for what it is: an over-zealous wannabe hero who is ignorant of the law. He was arrested, so it's not like he got away with his crime. Maybe more information will come to light (prior arrests, complaints, etc) that will reveal it to be a racially motivated attack.

As for the others being arrested, there were only two other people in physical contact with Mr Daniels, after the initial take-down, and I don't believe that they struck him; they only held him down, which is probably well within the confines of a citizen's arrest. The other bystanders just removed the gun from the area. Big deal. The cops did the right thing in this situation.

Wow really? Like this was not thrown out there to try and get people to think RT is not Putin's personal propaganda station. This lady has less journalistic integrity than a "News of the World" reporter before it was closed.

Well I think it goes beyond even "the administration" because the administration changes with the president. We constantly fall for this idea that the nation is going to dramatically change depending on which president is in office and it doesn't ever happen because the president and the president's administration is not a dictator, benevolent or malevolent.

again I want to stress that I don't think they're blameless I'm just saying have some perspective. No matter who is in office, you've got almost half the nation determined to find dirt on who is in office.

you combine that with a 24 hour news cycle that thrives not on journalistic integrity, but on ratings. Then things (regardless of left or right) get blown way the hell out of proportion

Sooo, by the sounds of it, we have an insane person who took offence at this guy stopping suddenly, which caused him to have to slam on his breaks.

And that's it, that's enough to make you flip out to that degree? Some people are seriously deranged, seriously need some help.

But bravo Today Tonight for taking what is an interesting and fairly scary story, and going batshit crazy on the fear mongering at the end by trying to say that road rage is mentally out of control by showing clips of road rage from all over the world implying these are all recent Australian road rage incidents, and we should all fear for our lives.

Bravo Today tonight, you just keep on with your journalistic integrity.

Dicks.

>> ^Trancecoach:

This is the [censored] version of the image, as printed in Hustler, replete with a Disclaimer. (SFW)
(My personal view is that this is totally within the bounds of satire, especially with the accompanying disclaimer printed beside it and thus, should not be made illegal.)


I am actually in agreement here.

Hell, they could go ahead and 'Shop her face onto some naked woman's body, for all I care. It isn't illegal. I mean, sure, it is in bad taste... but it's HUSTLER. What did anyone expect?

They even put in the disclaimer (in Extremely Obvious Yellow!) to maintain a little 'journalistic' integrity. I would not have expected that.

great journalistic integrity right there. Why report the news when you can create them?