344
Their unequal treatment of Dem and GOP just proves they are no longer a news organization, just a propaganda machine.
Their unequal treatment of Dem and GOP just proves they are no longer a news organization, just a propaganda machine.
It doesn't prove that at all, and frankly it's not true. They are part of a for-profit corporation. Their decisions are based on making money for shareholders, and not about journalism or informing the public. So if upsetting Trump, and his supporters, would cost them money, then they will withhold the information. Profit Über alles!
as if this documentary would be the thing that turns people around from the millions of trump scandals that should have sunk him a long time ago
NBC just doesn't want everyone in the building to get death threats
Apparently, there is no worse election interference than giving the people accurate portrayals of the beliefs and behaviors of the candidates.
Every day it seems like these media companies might only care about their own profits, and the richest people who own the most shares... That are among the 5% of Americans who get tax breaks with Trump's upcoming policies.
I hope someday they all get thrust back into poverty and the world shits on them as they have shit on the world.
Headline appears editorialized, there's nothing in the OG headline or source about Trump's feelings.
Please restore the original headline or we'll have to remove it.
p.s. My personal opinion is that it has more to do with accusations of election interference.
Choosing not to release information is election interference itself. That's intentionally keeping voters uninformed about material facts about a candidate.
I generally agree with your PS, though, I'm not sure I'm thrilled with the idea that independent news organizations should be making decisions based on fears of election interference. Unlike the possible accusations of conflict of interests for government agencies or institutions, the role of the media (ostensibly and historically) has been, and continues to be, to ensure transparency, accountability, and public participation in governance.
"Interfering" with elections through informational reporting seems to be a primary role of the news. Though, perhaps the fact that's it's a documentary changes the calculus. In some sense, this seems to be more fundamentally about the interests of the ownership of MSNBC and fears of retribution if it's released prior to the election, but I don't think Trump is going to be particularly discerning in his retribution one way or the other.
Oh, yeah, definitely, and if it were simply a matter of transparency, I'd agree.
The problem is Trump brands news agencies "the enemy" and when he does that, his fanbase starts issuing death threats.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437610-trump-calls-press-the-enemy-of-the-people/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/04/trump-interview-nabj-abc-host
Yeah, he really does have a sort of stochastic-terror network at his disposal, which is terrifying. Someone I know in my red/blue-split city -- smart and wise, kind, experience leading organizations, experience working with the city, and with good ideas for how to improve things like education and parks -- told me they won't run for any office, which they originally had considered, because, and I quote, "I have kids. I can't risk being killed for trying to improve this city."
That was one of the most depressing conversations I've had in a while.
Pathetic. Grow a backbone, NBC.
I swear something like this happened in 2016
Nah. That was the NYT in 2005.
This appears to be overstated. The "offend Donald Trump" comment comes from Oliver Darcy, who left CNN in August 2024 to focus full time on his email newsletter and website, Status, which focuses on news about the media industry.
This is Oliver Darcy's take, and no one else's.
It's Oliver Darcy's reporting based on conversations with multiple individuals at various levels of the corporation. This isn't something Darcy inferred on their own, they're reporting out on conversations they've had with individuals at the company.
Multiple?
Darcy reported that Rebecca Blumenstein, president of editorial for NBC News, opposed airing “Separated” before the election because executives want Trump to agree to another presidential debate hosted by the network.
However, Stephen Labaton, NBCUniversal head of communications, maintained to Darcy that “the debate had nothing to do with the scheduling of this programming.”
This story is making the rounds on a number of different outlets, and they all depend wholly on this one guy saying that Blumenstein said something, while Labaton said something different to that same guy. There's a single person as a source here, the story is overstated.
Edit: Oh, I see - the headline on the article doesn't match the title of this post. "...due to worries it will hurt Trump's feelings" - was that your editorializing, or did they change the headline?
It’s not exactly difficult to see Darcy’s original article for the full context of the conversations involved—you’ve already pointed out where their reports can be found. In cases like this, it’s not uncommon for the sources to remain unnamed.
Whether you’re not a fan of the reporter, the way the information was gathered, or how it’s presented, that’s beside the point. Individual journalists routinely compile insights from anonymous sources and publish those findings. I doubt you go around copying and pasting your Lemmy posts complaining about every article based on single-author reports with unnamed sources.
It's only appropriate to acknowledge wrong-doing when there's no way to punish them for it. /s
Salon - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Salon:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.salon.com/2024/10/09/new-documentary-details-child-separation-policy-but-nbc-wont-air-it-until-december/
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
344 points (99.7% liked)
politics
19246 readers
2779 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS