Shots Fired at White House Correspondents Dinner

[Szdfan]

Media tends to be cautious when reporting breaking news and hedges things.

A bit silly when "the media" was basically the entire audience at the event. You'd think with hundreds of reporters on the scene, a few of them could have, well, reported.

Not silly at all. In the chaos of the moment, eyewitnesses don’t always know what’s going on. Newsmax kept speculating and suggesting that it was the Iranians and as Ken pointed out, there were published reports that the shooter was killed, which turned out not to be true.

[temporal1]

i’m hopeful, with msm present in the moment, they will employ restraint going forward, rather than pushing+pressing
(examples, instantly+fabulously+”finally” labeling J6 an insurrection, and jumping to presume Jussie Smollett a hapless victim) ..

The notion msm hedges is a beloved myth. They earned loss of credibility.

President T remarked he was impressed with msm’s behavior following the shooting.
Impressive how he kept a cool head and thought of others in that life+death moment. Melania+others were there, too.
It was a room in PANIC.

Trump was calm and fresh for the moment.

Hope for the future!!

- - - - - - -

JohnH:
.. You'd think with hundreds of reporters on the scene, a few of them could have, well, reported.

notice, when they can’t think of anything bad to say, they’re silent.

[ohio jones]

The notion msm hedges is a beloved myth. They earned loss of credibility.

Before or after November 3, 1948?

[temporal1]

The notion msm hedges is a beloved myth. They earned loss of credibility.

Before or after November 3, 1948?

Dewey was elected before my time; i recall my parents becoming very disgusted at televised news, specifically when pundits began adding their opinions and expectations to upcoming (example, presidents’) speeches, AND, their opinions and assessments following those speeches.

(i believe) before television, many-most had radios, presidents would speak .. full stop. (??)
i’ve seen pictures of families gathering around radios for news. Entertainment, too. Adults wanted to hear presidents speak directly to them. My impression is, that was high-value news.

My parents were adamant, they wanted to listen, themselves, then conclude on their own.
i respected that. i think it’s a good model. i’m glad i got to hear their first-person opinions on it.

The closest thing today is looking for the original source, which is often available in some form.
In spite of all the many noisemakers.

They weren’t political, no party affiliations, i have no idea about voting.
They were keen on secret ballots, they didn’t tell each other if they voted or how.

i’m happy i heard their views, long before i was eligible to vote.
To value and respect others’ privacy. Even in marriage!

i feel, thru tech and statistics, the notion of secret ballots has been grossly eroded.
Today, stats are so fine-tuned, how a person votes can be guessed by looking at that person, or knowing their demographics, location, etc. i see beauty in one legal citizen, one vote, end of story. i suppose that would drive tech guys and politicians mad.

Well. i see beauty in the lot, too.

[barnhart]

Media tends to be cautious when reporting breaking news and hedges things.

A bit silly when "the media" was basically the entire audience at the event. You'd think with hundreds of reporters on the scene, a few of them could have, well, reported.

Not silly at all. In the chaos of the moment, eyewitnesses don’t always know what’s going on. Newsmax kept speculating and suggesting that it was the Iranians and as Ken pointed out, there were published reports that the shooter was killed, which turned out not to be true.

This exposes the limits of twitter journalism. We want lots of coverage immediately but we expect it to be accurate and reliable. This is why I haven't rushed to judgment of "msm". I like "msm", at least I like the accountability (such as it is) and professionalism. I like layers of editors and fact checkers, I like on staff lawyers concerned with liability exposure, I like editorial pages when positions and opinions are on open display for discussion, I like actual experienced reporters on site with a regular beat, I like regular printed retractions. Trading this for two or three social media platforms owned and controlled by the most powerful politicians and close friends seems unbelievably short sighted.

I remember reading about George Washington moving into the capital after the war to assume the presidency and making a special trip to ask the opposition newspaper publisher to stop packing up to flee and instead stay and continue to print. I think we would do well to adopt some of his attitude toward media.

[barnhart]

I know this is easy to say after the fact but I had a very bad feeling about this event beforehand. I don't like them in general since I want a media that is somewhat oppositional to power, not wining and dining and telling jokes together. But this one seem extra fraught because of the relationship the president has established with media, I simply couldn't imagine anything good coming from that event. I didn't expect a shooting but I didn't see any upside.

[Valerie]

A bit silly when "the media" was basically the entire audience at the event. You'd think with hundreds of reporters on the scene, a few of them could have, well, reported.

Not silly at all. In the chaos of the moment, eyewitnesses don’t always know what’s going on. Newsmax kept speculating and suggesting that it was the Iranians and as Ken pointed out, there were published reports that the shooter was killed, which turned out not to be true.

This exposes the limits of twitter journalism. We want lots of coverage immediately but we expect it to be accurate and reliable. This is why I haven't rushed to judgment of "msm". I like "msm", at least I like the accountability (such as it is) and professionalism. I like layers of editors and fact checkers, I like on staff lawyers concerned with liability exposure, I like editorial pages when positions and opinions are on open display for discussion, I like actual experienced reporters on site with a regular beat, I like regular printed retractions. Trading this for two or three social media platforms owned and controlled by the most powerful politicians and close friends seems unbelievably short sighted.

I remember reading about George Washington moving into the capital after the war to assume the presidency and making a special trip to ask the opposition newspaper publisher to stop packing up to flee and instead stay and continue to print. I think we would do well to adopt some of his attitude toward media.

George Washington was known for his honesty and probably assumed the opposition told the truth. Not sure, hard for me to remember if newspapers back then get sued for lying like msm does now. They don’t go away afterwards but it has added to the mistrust. People in general are less honest these days. I have management in more than one job position or location asking me to lie- they justified it. Lost a lot by refusing to.

[barnhart]

George Washington was known for his honesty and probably assumed the opposition told the truth. Not sure, hard for me to remember if newspapers back then get sued for lying like msm does now. They don’t go away afterwards but it has added to the mistrust. People in general are less honest these days. I have management in more than one job position or location asking me to lie- they justified it. Lost a lot by refusing to.

I think you should do some digging into that history, I think the media landscape of his day was less reliable, more partisan and less truthful. I would compare it to grocery store tabloids.

In many ways we are in a golden age of media and yet we are less happy with it. In the past it was more censored, more controlled and more propagandistic.

[JohnH]

I think you should do some digging into that history, I think the media landscape of his day was less reliable, more partisan and less truthful. I would compare it to grocery store tabloids.

In many ways we are in a golden age of media and yet we are less happy with it. In the past it was more censored, more controlled and more propagandistic.

Or the media's biases happen to coincide with your own, so you can't see the ways they are not reliable, partisan, and untruthful.

[Valerie]

I think you should do some digging into that history, I think the media landscape of his day was less reliable, more partisan and less truthful. I would compare it to grocery store tabloids.

In many ways we are in a golden age of media and yet we are less happy with it. In the past it was more censored, more controlled and more propagandistic.

Or the media's biases happen to coincide with your own, so you can't see the ways they are not reliable, partisan, and untruthful.

Unfortunately I thought the same thing.
It is not difficult when you read posts which type of media people align with.

If what Barnhart says is true about the past, I’m trying to understand then why on earth Washington wanted that “other” newspaper to stick around & influence minds.