Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The award for Best Impeachment Coverage goes to The New York Times -- here's why.
The New York Times’ website was must-see for one reason: running commentary from some of the sharpest reporters in the world. Next to testimony broadcast on the screen, White House and Washington correspondents from the Times such as Maggie Haberman, Emily Cochrane, Michael S. Schmidt, Nicholas Fandos, Annie Karni, Peter Baker and Charlie Savage (and others) offered quick-take commentary and perspective in real time.
Some of that was details that viewers wouldn’t know by just watching, such as when Cochrane wrote, “This is now Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, and just two Democrats will be left. Many of the members in the audience have left, but Mark Meadows, a key Trump ally, and Carolyn Maloney, who hopes to take permanent control of the Oversight committee, are among those still here.”
Another example is when Schmidt wrote, “Just a reminder: John Ratcliffe, the Republican who raised objections to (Rep. Adam) Schiff, was Trump’s pick to be the director of national intelligence – the same position that played a pivotal role in the whistle-blower’s complaint being held up before it was sent to Congress.”
But the commentary was at its very best when it was describing a detail or fact, or offering some context that perhaps readers weren’t familiar with, such as when Haberman wrote, “Mulvaney’s press conference in which he conceded there was a quid pro quo continues to be problematic for the president. It’s been raised a few times during this hearing, and was just now with (Rep. Eric) Swalwell to (George) Kent.”
Some of that was details that viewers wouldn’t know by just watching, such as when Cochrane wrote, “This is now Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, and just two Democrats will be left. Many of the members in the audience have left, but Mark Meadows, a key Trump ally, and Carolyn Maloney, who hopes to take permanent control of the Oversight committee, are among those still here.”
Another example is when Schmidt wrote, “Just a reminder: John Ratcliffe, the Republican who raised objections to (Rep. Adam) Schiff, was Trump’s pick to be the director of national intelligence – the same position that played a pivotal role in the whistle-blower’s complaint being held up before it was sent to Congress.”
But the commentary was at its very best when it was describing a detail or fact, or offering some context that perhaps readers weren’t familiar with, such as when Haberman wrote, “Mulvaney’s press conference in which he conceded there was a quid pro quo continues to be problematic for the president. It’s been raised a few times during this hearing, and was just now with (Rep. Eric) Swalwell to (George) Kent.”
https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2019/the-award-for-best-impeachment-coverage-goes-to-the-new-york-times-heres-why/
16 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
https://www.mediaite.com/news/reuters-reporter-roasted-for-panning-lack-of-fireworks-quoting-eric-trump-in-impeachment-roundup-a-guided-tour-through-media-dysfunctions/
Reuters Reporter Roasted for Panning Lack of ‘Fireworks,’ Quoting Eric Trump in Impeachment Coverage: ‘A Guided Tour Through Media Dysfunctions’
The first day of impeachment hearings of President Donald Trump included hours of detailed, sworn testimony of his alleged misconduct and a stunning new revelation about his extortion efforts on Ukraine, but because the proceedings lacked “fireworks” and began “without a bang,” Reuters reporter Jeff Mason panned the historic moment as “dull” and quoted a tweet from the president’s own son, Eric, who unsurprisingly dismissed the hearings as “horribly boring.”
Mason’s arch, drama-critic review of the Congressional hearings ignited fast and fierce pushback from journalists and politicians alike, and his similarly cavalier tweet about the story was quickly called out by thousands of angry replies.
Mason, who is the former president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, fell victim to several journalistic bad habits, critics charged, from dueling-soundbites framing to clichéd “reality TV” analogies to a supposedly “savvy” meta-focus on the optics, instead of the substance, of the political moment.
</snip>
Reuters Reporter Roasted for Panning Lack of ‘Fireworks,’ Quoting Eric Trump in Impeachment Coverage: ‘A Guided Tour Through Media Dysfunctions’
The first day of impeachment hearings of President Donald Trump included hours of detailed, sworn testimony of his alleged misconduct and a stunning new revelation about his extortion efforts on Ukraine, but because the proceedings lacked “fireworks” and began “without a bang,” Reuters reporter Jeff Mason panned the historic moment as “dull” and quoted a tweet from the president’s own son, Eric, who unsurprisingly dismissed the hearings as “horribly boring.”
Mason’s arch, drama-critic review of the Congressional hearings ignited fast and fierce pushback from journalists and politicians alike, and his similarly cavalier tweet about the story was quickly called out by thousands of angry replies.
Link to tweet
Mason, who is the former president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, fell victim to several journalistic bad habits, critics charged, from dueling-soundbites framing to clichéd “reality TV” analogies to a supposedly “savvy” meta-focus on the optics, instead of the substance, of the political moment.
</snip>
I'll probably stick with the journalists on my Twitter list, here @ DU and of course, the live stream from (preferably) C-Span.
The more the merrier. It's must-see TV, don'tcha know. 
