OMFG, the word Cheney doesn't appear on the home or front page of the Times today.
-
@jeffjarvis “is ignoring this story” = not true
“has not put it where I would have done” = true, I guess
There ought to be a media commentary law that “BlahBlah Is Ignoring This Story” almost always means that, in fact, BlahBlah has covered the story, and it’s just not where the complainant thinks it should be.
(It’s also a top story in the “here’s what’s happening in the presidential race” live blog thing as of an hour ago)
-
Given that Dick Cheney is a #MurdochJournal god, you'd think the earth-shattering news that he is endorsing Kamala Harris would be front page news. But no, the Cheney story does not appear on the print or online front page. News judgment? Ha!
-
Perfect expression of what newspaper front pages *should* say today--but do not. An extension of my rant and post
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to James Cridland last edited by [email protected]
This story was put up last night after sitting on the news all day and is no longer available without searching for it. It 'ran' only for a few hours. If that's what you mean by not where people want it, then you are correct, but it is also an obvious conscious effort to deemphasize news favorable to Harris. So Jeff Jarvis is absolutely justified in his criticism.
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to John Panzer last edited by
Say his name... A. G. Sulzberger is an enemy of the people. If his propaganda efforts for Trump result in the end of democracy, the blood is on his hands. No hyperbole.
-
James Cridlandreplied to Mastodon Migration last edited by
@mastodonmigration @jeffjarvis Hours later, it is still one of the top stories referenced to from the live blog https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/09/07/us/harris-trump-election?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb - it was categorically not ignored.
The front page currently carries a majority of news stories favourable to Harris: but the order of the news agenda will always be something to criticise. I don’t know, but I’d criticise the priority of the news agenda, rather than falsely claim that the story was ignored. A brazen lie doesn’t really make a point.
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to James Cridland last edited by
So, never even went to their blog page, so have no idea what you are talking about. Can search and find it, but that's not the same as running it. Not sure why you are arguing this, it seems more that obvious that this big news story has been deemphasized.
-
James Cridlandreplied to Mastodon Migration last edited by
@mastodonmigration @jeffjarvis agreed. But not ignored.
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to James Cridland last edited by
Seems like your splitting hairs, but let's just move on.
-
James Cridlandreplied to Mastodon Migration last edited by
@mastodonmigration @jeffjarvis
Let’s be clear, because this is important - good journalism is accurate journalism, however it’s presented.
“Ignored” = “not covered by this title in any way, not reported on or mentioned at all”
It’s the laziest of arguments to claim that a title ignores a story - quite a claim - when all that’s happened here is that a title hasn’t promoted it to be part of the news agenda in the way that the poster would have liked it to have been. This is a valid criticism. But it needs to be made honestly, not dishonestly.
I’m bored of articles claiming that a title, or even “the MSM”, has ignored a story. It lets people suggest that the media is being censored, or that there is some form of master plan, and erodes trust in the media.
This isn’t splitting hairs. This is important.
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to James Cridland last edited by
Starting to get some serious reply guy, sealioning energy from you here. Do not agree with your point of view and not going to discuss it anymore. Next will be a mute.