2017 CEO vs worker compensation

[MU82]

I don't disagree with the part about Haberman being a hack.  She is to investigative journalism what the court stenographer is to the justice system.

We'll agree to disagree on that.

I threw out her name earlier in this thread because it was the first to pop into my head. I don't hold her up as the example of great investigative journalism. Indeed, she works more on the day-to-day stuff than the long-term, long-form investigative stuff. But either way, I absolutely do not consider her a hack. I have read -- and edited -- many hacks over the years.

Either way, she is an example of a dedicated journalist who is pretty much on the clock 24/7. That was the original point.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I disagree with all of this. But that's cool. We're all allowed opinions.

And in my opinion, the journalists at the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post have been American heroes these past 2 years.

Where were these "heroes" the previous 8 years?  Were they just worn out from the 8 years before that?  (Clintons' presidency is a different story)

I get it, you are a journalist, so you of course are going to defend your profession, but you have to admit that the NYT, WaPost, etc were not putting anywhere close to this kind of pressure on the previous administration.  Instead it was fluff pieces and hero worship.

I'm not defending the current administration, as they have made their own bed.  But the wall to wall "bombshells", "devistating news", and other hyperbolic writing/reporting has really jumped the shark.

(I'll take my day off for politics now, mods.)

[GGGG]

Where were these "heroes" the previous 8 years?  Were they just worn out from the 8 years before that?  (Clintons' presidency is a different story)

I get it, you are a journalist, so you of course are going to defend your profession, but you have to admit that the NYT, WaPost, etc were not putting anywhere close to this kind of pressure on the previous administration. Instead it was fluff pieces and hero worship.

Someone wasn't really paying much attention it seems.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Someone wasn't really paying much attention it seems.

Obama self described his presidency as "scandal free." 

What wasn't I paying attention to?  Anything bad was just a RW conspiracy. 

Did you know Obama released his summer reading list yesterday?  Was a "moment" on Twitter for most of the afternoon.

[Pakuni]

I get it, you are a journalist, so you of course are going to defend your profession, but you have to admit that the NYT, WaPost, etc were not putting anywhere close to this kind of pressure on the previous administration.  Instead it was fluff pieces and hero worship.

This is provably false.
Yes, Obama has described his presidency as "scandal-free (I have little doubt Trump would do the same, btw).
And just a few months ago, the Boston Globe called him out for it. And then proceeded to list some of the scandals, all of which were covered in (and in most cases, the stories were broken by) outlets like the Washington Post, NY Times, Boston Globe, etc.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/03/06/obama-repeats-myth-that-his-administration-was-free-scandal/oyXEqY1QktjuXSL9Yj21IM/story.html

Fast and Furious, for example, was first reported in the mainstream by CBS News.
The Clinton email scandal was broken by the New York Times.
The Veterans Health Administration woes were first reported by CNN.
The DOJ's spying on reporters was first reported by the AP.

[Lennys Tap]

Obama self described his presidency as "scandal free." 

What wasn't I paying attention to?  Anything bad was just a RW conspiracy. 

Did you know Obama released his summer reading list yesterday?  Was a "moment" on Twitter for most of the afternoon.

MSM journalists wept when Obama was elected in 2008. And they wept again when Trump was elected in 2016. Tears of joy for the former, tears of anger/distress for the latter. Their coverage (generally speaking) was consistent with their feelings.

[Pakuni]

MSM journalists wept when Obama was elected in 2008. And they wept again when Trump was elected in 2016. Tears of joy for the former, tears of anger/distress for the latter. Their coverage (generally speaking) was consistent with their feelings.

MSM = Fox News (most watched news channel), Wall Street journal (most circulated newspaper) and Rush Limbaugh (most listened to syndicated radio host)?

[GGGG]

This is provably false.
Yes, Obama has described his presidency as "scandal-free (I have little doubt Trump would do the same, btw).
And just a few months ago, the Boston Globe called him out for it. And then proceeded to list some of the scandals, all of which were covered in (and in most cases, the stories were broken by) outlets like the Washington Post, NY Times, Boston Globe, etc.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/03/06/obama-repeats-myth-that-his-administration-was-free-scandal/oyXEqY1QktjuXSL9Yj21IM/story.html

Fast and Furious, for example, was first reported in the mainstream by CBS News.
The Clinton email scandal was broken by the New York Times.
The Veterans Health Administration woes were first reported by CNN.
The DOJ's spying on reporters was first reported by the AP.

Yep.  Anyone who thinks that the "MSM" wasn't doing their job during the Obama years probably spent too much time listening to what people were claiming about the MSM and not enough time, you know, paying attention.

MSM journalists wept when Obama was elected in 2008. And they wept again when Trump was elected in 2016. Tears of joy for the former, tears of anger/distress for the latter. Their coverage (generally speaking) was consistent with their feelings.

I'm shocked that you would fall for this tripe too. 

[Benny B]

The "mainstream media" is kind of like Bigfoot... an unproven concept that seems like it might be real, but the fact that no one can agree on what it is or isn't doesn't stop people from claiming it kidnapped their dog.

[GGGG]

The "mainstream media" is kind of like Bigfoot... an unproven concept that seems like it might be real, but the fact that no one can agree on what it is or isn't doesn't stop people from claiming it kidnapped their dog.

Good analogy.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

We'll agree to disagree on that.

I threw out her name earlier in this thread because it was the first to pop into my head. I don't hold her up as the example of great investigative journalism. Indeed, she works more on the day-to-day stuff than the long-term, long-form investigative stuff. But either way, I absolutely do not consider her a hack. I have read -- and edited -- many hacks over the years.

Either way, she is an example of a dedicated journalist who is pretty much on the clock 24/7. That was the original point.

Yes, you are right, hack is probably too strong a term for her.  I stand corrected.  I do agree with the characterization that she is merely a stenographer trading on her access.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Where were these "heroes" the previous 8 years?  Were they just worn out from the 8 years before that?  (Clintons' presidency is a different story)

I get it, you are a journalist, so you of course are going to defend your profession, but you have to admit that the NYT, WaPost, etc were not putting anywhere close to this kind of pressure on the previous administration.  Instead it was fluff pieces and hero worship.

I'm not defending the current administration, as they have made their own bed.  But the wall to wall "bombshells", "devistating news", and other hyperbolic writing/reporting has really jumped the shark.

(I'll take my day off for politics now, mods.)

Sorry ZFB, but I call false equivalency.  We've NEVER had an administration like the current one, so IMO there is no way to compare journalists' current actions with how they had to cover government on the past.

[mu03eng]

This journalism thing is very interesting because it really requires you to ask what is required for and of a free press. To call journalist heroes is certainly overwrought IMO, what exactly have the been doing that makes them heroic? Unless I missed something their families aren't being threatened or jailed nor are they themselves, they aren't having to sneak around in the middle of the night because they might be caught and killed, etc. Now, just because I don't think they are heroes, that doesn't mean they aren't providing a valuable service in general (but I also don't think the current group is anymore valuable than journalists that have come before them).

I think there are a lot of journalists who are doing a great job in gathering information, providing context, and telling the stories so people who consumed it can be informed. However, I also think there is a lot of journalism that is positioning their role as some sort of seawall against some great evil that they alone must stand against and their job is somehow to drive consumers to see their viewpoint (activist journalists if you will). I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of Chief Cheeto, but I think journalism does itself a tremendous disservice when it tries to "flood the zone" with stories and blurs the line between reporting and opining. Both things are extremely valuable but when you have reports advocating as part of a factual piece it is problematic.

Not saving I'm right, just saying how I see it. I'm definitely sympathetic to the situation journalists find themselves in but I also think they've done their fair share of putting themselves in that position.

[Lennys Tap]

This journalism thing is very interesting because it really requires you to ask what is required for and of a free press. To call journalist heroes is certainly overwrought IMO, what exactly have the been doing that makes them heroic? Unless I missed something their families aren't being threatened or jailed nor are they themselves, they aren't having to sneak around in the middle of the night because they might be caught and killed, etc. Now, just because I don't think they are heroes, that doesn't mean they aren't providing a valuable service in general (but I also don't think the current group is anymore valuable than journalists that have come before them).

I think there are a lot of journalists who are doing a great job in gathering information, providing context, and telling the stories so people who consumed it can be informed. However, I also think there is a lot of journalism that is positioning their role as some sort of seawall against some great evil that they alone must stand against and their job is somehow to drive consumers to see their viewpoint (activist journalists if you will). I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of Chief Cheeto, but I think journalism does itself a tremendous disservice when it tries to "flood the zone" with stories and blurs the line between reporting and opining. Both things are extremely valuable but when you have reports advocating as part of a factual piece it is problematic.

Not saving I'm right, just saying how I see it. I'm definitely sympathetic to the situation journalists find themselves in but I also think they've done their fair share of putting themselves in that position.

Well said.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This journalism thing is very interesting because it really requires you to ask what is required for and of a free press. To call journalist heroes is certainly overwrought IMO, what exactly have the been doing that makes them heroic? Unless I missed something their families aren't being threatened or jailed nor are they themselves, they aren't having to sneak around in the middle of the night because they might be caught and killed, etc. Now, just because I don't think they are heroes, that doesn't mean they aren't providing a valuable service in general (but I also don't think the current group is anymore valuable than journalists that have come before them).

I think there are a lot of journalists who are doing a great job in gathering information, providing context, and telling the stories so people who consumed it can be informed. However, I also think there is a lot of journalism that is positioning their role as some sort of seawall against some great evil that they alone must stand against and their job is somehow to drive consumers to see their viewpoint (activist journalists if you will). I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of Chief Cheeto, but I think journalism does itself a tremendous disservice when it tries to "flood the zone" with stories and blurs the line between reporting and opining. Both things are extremely valuable but when you have reports advocating as part of a factual piece it is problematic.

Not saving I'm right, just saying how I see it. I'm definitely sympathetic to the situation journalists find themselves in but I also think they've done their fair share of putting themselves in that position.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/402740-ny-times-reporter-shares-voicemail-from-man-threatening-him-with-ak-47

That's just from yesterday. I don't know that calling journalists heroes is the right thing to do or not. But I think its pretty unarguable that it is more dangerous to be a journalist today than it was two years ago.

[MU82]

I usually try pretty hard to avoid hyperbole, so "heroic" probably was over the top. But TAMU's post shows that there is real danger in doing one's job in this profession. Hell, I once got a death threat for a column I wrote on Bobby Knight, so I know some of these people might be in danger given the ferver with which Spanky whips up his sycophants.

Showtime ran an incredible mini-series on the NYT's coverage of Spanky's first year. I believe it was toward the end of the third part where Spanky is on stage in Phoenix, pointing at the reporters on press row and bellowing (paraphrased), "There they are! The fake news media! They are the enemy of the people!" And the reaction of the crowd ... I was legitimately concerned for the well-being of those reporters.

But OK, maybe "heroic" was over the top. John McCain was heroic. My father, who served in WWII, was heroic. Maybe WSJ, NYT and WaPo reporters aren't really "heroic." Thanks for calling me on it, mu03.

Otherwise, I admit I can't be objective on this subject, and I've already said my piece, so I'll hang up and listen from here on out.

I'll only return if I see something that is false being presented as fact (as opposed to opinion), and even then only if somebody else hasn't gotten to it first.

Carry on, friends.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/402740-ny-times-reporter-shares-voicemail-from-man-threatening-him-with-ak-47

That's just from yesterday. I don't know that calling journalists heroes is the right thing to do or not. But I think its pretty unarguable that it is more dangerous to be a journalist today than it was two years ago.

I wonder what could possibly have incited this man to call the journalist "the enemy of the people" and threaten violence?

[Pakuni]

This journalism thing is very interesting because it really requires you to ask what is required for and of a free press. To call journalist heroes is certainly overwrought IMO, what exactly have the been doing that makes them heroic? Unless I missed something their families aren't being threatened or jailed nor are they themselves, they aren't having to sneak around in the middle of the night because they might be caught and killed, etc. Now, just because I don't think they are heroes, that doesn't mean they aren't providing a valuable service in general (but I also don't think the current group is anymore valuable than journalists that have come before them).

I think there are a lot of journalists who are doing a great job in gathering information, providing context, and telling the stories so people who consumed it can be informed. However, I also think there is a lot of journalism that is positioning their role as some sort of seawall against some great evil that they alone must stand against and their job is somehow to drive consumers to see their viewpoint (activist journalists if you will). I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of Chief Cheeto, but I think journalism does itself a tremendous disservice when it tries to "flood the zone" with stories and blurs the line between reporting and opining. Both things are extremely valuable but when you have reports advocating as part of a factual piece it is problematic.

Not saving I'm right, just saying how I see it. I'm definitely sympathetic to the situation journalists find themselves in but I also think they've done their fair share of putting themselves in that position.

This is largely a good post, and as one who's worked in the profession, I hardly consider myself a hero, though I do consider my work important and essential. (And, for the record, I have been threatened with violence on several occasions for doing my job).
That said, I do wonder about a couple things you write here.
Like, when you say journalists "flood the zone" and blur the line between reporting and opining, what exactly are you referring to? I'm having a difficult time knowing how to respond to that without some actual examples to go on.
And, of course, where do you draw the line between opining and reporting. For example, if a political figure makes a potentially misleading statement, does the reporter merely regurgitate that statement, or does the reporter explain why it's questionable? And is that opining - calling into question the veracity of the statement?
I suspect everyone draws the line on these questions somewhere different, and that line likely shifts from story to story and media outlet to media outlet based on one's political allegiances.

[Jay Bee]

Interesting thread, lol.

Bummer about that Iowa girl.

[tower912]

Bummer about that family in Colorado, too.    Which has exactly as much to do with this conversation. 

[Babybluejeans]

Bummer about that family in Colorado, too.    Which has exactly as much to do with this conversation.

Actually, JB's comment unintentionally supplies a perfect bow to this conversation. Because it demonstrates how lots of folks will easily take the bait in being distracted by our fractured mediascape: two of the president's men were found guilty of federal crimes today, including one in a way that directly implicates the president. But I just looked at foxnews.com and the headline story is about...the Iowa girl and the suspect being an illegal immigrant. Ditto Breitbart. JB only represents the millions of people who are willingly misdirected toward distractions.

[naginiF]

Actually, JB's comment unintentionally supplies a perfect bow to this conversation. Because it demonstrates how lots of folks will easily take the bait in being distracted by our fractured mediascape: two of the president's men were found guilty of federal crimes today, including one in a way that directly implicates the president. But I just looked at foxnews.com and the headline story is about...the Iowa girl and the suspect being an illegal immigrant. Ditto Breitbart. JB only represents the millions of people who are willingly misdirected toward distractions.

*standing O*

The flak sent up directly about the Iowa murder involving an illegal immigrant and indirectly about erasing "our" heritage (Silent Sam) was pretty impressive. 

[Benny B]

Back to the topic at hand....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/stark-divide-incredible-aerial-pictures-slideshow-wp-084354259.html

[jesmu84]

As a branch from the original topic, as it pertains to differences between classes and inequality, and a very pertinent topic.... White collar crime needs to be prosecuted much, much more harshly.

[WarriorDad]

Interesting thread, lol.

Bummer about that Iowa girl.

Did they find her dead?  Over the weekend they were optimistic.