Mainstream Media

What are they reporting that wasn’t in the original reporting?

Also, I’m not sure I’ve seen any official explanation from the WH, that is a direct response to the story.

Edit: Okay, now I have seen an official WH explanation. It’s not the same as the guesses people were making earlier. But those were guesses.

Several details from insiders that they were able to source from inside the White House to start. Also, they layered in some real analysis. In the end, I’m still wondering why the story is supposedly tainted just because the Post or Berenson wrote about it earlier.

Some other outlets guessed. The NYT story however points out real inconsistencies. For example, the White House saying no one has seen any reason for a detailed neurological consult when several neurologists have said they see symptoms of Parkinson’s in his public appearances. Those came with the caveat it can’t be confirmed without a detailed examination but they explained they’d 100% recommend the detail examination. Which the White House says is unnecessary…because he isn’t showing signs. They also said that they did a detailed work up as part of his physical but haven’t released any of those details.

Anyway, this has been the problem. The White House over and over is flashing signs they could be lying to the public about his condition. Considering those signs we have to expect they are going to dig in because…that’s their job.

Yeah, wasn’t there a shouting match at the presser yesterday?

That started when the Press Secretary started effectively dancing around the questions about past lines of inquiry about Biden’s health and then Dr. Cannard.

The reporter was essentially challenging her about the evasiveness of the White House. He was asking about Dr. Cannard and saying that the public can see his name in a public record. Jeane-Pierre kept saying some absolute nonsense about how she can’t name people for security and privacy reasons. And the reporter and Jeane-Pierre were pretty frustrated with each other.

Edit: It mostly involved CBS Correspondent Ed O’Keefe. When you have the WH Press Corps this frustrated it is a sign that something extraordinary is going on.

Neurologists diagnosing people by watching their public appearances on TV should probably fuck right off, really.

There is some discussion of this in the other thread, you know. Not sure why we are doing this over here, too.

Yeah - screw expertise! How post-modern.

Does this level of disrespect usually serve you well?

I mean, either you’re reading the other thread and you know that WaPo has done some real reporting on this that indicates this NYT reporting is crap but you’re here doing this anyway, or you should be reading the other thread so you would know that and not be here doing this anyway. Either way, that’s enough reason to point you at the other thread.

My fault. Don’t know why I bothered to post an example of shoddy journalism.

It’s a great example of shoddy journalism. I’m not complaining about that, it’s the opportunistic conspiracy-mongering that irritates me.

CNN CEO Mark Thompson outlined his digital vision in a lengthy memo to staff Wednesday morning, announcing plans to build a flurry of digital products, including a subscription offering before the end of the year, plans to launch other paid offerings built around lifestyle journalism and a “strategic push into AI.”

In his note, Thompson said that about 100 roles will be cut, representing just shy of 3 percent of CNN’s workforce. He will host a town hall with staff later in the day to further elaborate on the plan.

And nothing of value was lost.

This is how the dead internet begins.

First digital subscription product? Didn’t they launch a disastrous subscription streaming service like a year ago?

Yup. CNN+. I guess it bombed so hard he forgot.

Literally one month of service, then shut down.

“Make a streaming service” is the same kind of thing as “push into AI.”

These companies are failing because they are mistaking a means for the end.

“Use AI” isn’t a solution in and of itself, just like “make a streaming service” isn’t. A streaming service is a means by which you can deliver content to your consumers. If consumers don’t want your content, or don’t have an issue receiving your content currently, then the streaming service isn’t doing anything.

AI is the same thing. Using AI isn’t a goal. It’s a means by which you achieve some OTHER goal. If using AI is itself the goal, it means your leaders are idiots who have no coherent vision or direction.

Agreed. AI enables you to make content for your streaming service. And your streaming service, in turn, enables you to do something with your AI content investment.

This is obviously good, though after their behavior over the past two weeks it’s starting to read as “maximize chaos for clicks” rather than “take a responsible stand.” If they’d like to actually stick with this unbelievably important narrative, I’d be happy to revise that opinion.

Is that on the front page or a24?

I’m honestly surprised the lead in to that wasn’t “Democrats Have A Big Problem…”

Though they still managed to get some shots in on Democrats in a story about Trump being a danger to the country. I’m still 100% FTNYT, but hopefully that article can convince some swing state voters to see that 2024 may not be about who is the better choice, but about who is the worst choice.

It’s an opinion piece. It SHOULD of course be the headline for the next 4 months.