208

The White House plans to send a letter to top US news executives on Wednesday, urging them to intensify their scrutiny of House Republicans after Speaker Kevin McCarthy launched an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, despite having found no evidence of a crime.

“It’s time for the media to ramp up its scrutiny of House Republicans for opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies,” Ian Sams, a spokesperson for the White House Counsel’s Office, wrote in the letter, according to a draft copy obtained by CNN.

The letter, which said an impeachment inquiry with no supporting evidence should “set off alarm bells for news organizations,” will be sent to executives helming the nation’s largest news organizations, including CNN, The New York Times, Fox News, the Associated Press, CBS News, and others, a White House official familiar with the matter said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 520@kbin.social 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They aren't. They're asking the news outlets to do the due diligence they should already be doing.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

It's weird that we are at the point where suggesting that journalists do actual journalism (not report "both sides") is considered something outside the norm. So shameful.

"If someone says it’s raining, and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the f*cking window and find out which is true"

[-] 520@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

I couldn't agree more. While there is room for both-sides-ism, that's only when both sides have actual, valid points. Side A's lies are not equal to Side B's facts.

[-] transigence@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

No, when it comes to journalism specifically, it's also when one or more sides are absolutely batshit insane. Actually, even especially when one or more sides is absolutely batshit insane.

[-] transigence@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago

If there is someone who says it's dry when it's obviously raining, that is absolutely more newsworthy than the mere fact that it's raining.
It would be fairness-biased to pretend like it could possibly be true that it's not raining, but yes, it is absolutely journalism to present all available sides, every single time. It's not the journalist's job to tell you which one is right — it's their job to show you what is out there.
What you're describing is propaganda or advocacy.

[-] phx@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It's not the journalist's job to tell you which one is right

But they can absolutely state when something is wrong while still being factual.

"Despite claims from politician X that the sky opened up and ceased to rain in Y when he asked God for sunlight, here were are in Y right now while record rain and floods continue".

[-] transigence@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Sure, that's fair enough. That's fact-checking. But refusing to report on something ostensibly "because it wasn't correct" isn't an ethical journalistic practice. That would be propaganda.

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
208 points (96.4% liked)

politics

19145 readers
1928 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS