Because we haven't made politics into enough of a fucking joke yet.Sanders to debate Cruz live on CNN https://t.co/5xvPG42hcH pic.twitter.com/a6sUA66eQl— The Hill (@thehill) February 1, 2017
In a message to staff today, Reuters Editor-in-Chief Steve Adler wrote about covering President Trump the Reuters way:
The first 12 days of the Trump presidency (yes, that’s all it’s been!) have been memorable for all – and especially challenging for us in the news business. It’s not every day that a U.S. president calls journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth” or that his chief strategist dubs the media “the opposition party.” It’s hardly surprising that the air is thick with questions and theories about how to cover the new Administration.
So what is the Reuters answer? To oppose the administration? To appease it? To boycott its briefings? To use our platform to rally support for the media? All these ideas are out there, and they may be right for some news operations, but they don’t make sense for Reuters. We already know what to do because we do it every day, and we do it all over the world.
To state the obvious, Reuters is a global news organization that reports independently and fairly in more than 100 countries, including many in which the media is unwelcome and frequently under attack. I am perpetually proud of our work in places such as Turkey, the Philippines, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Thailand, China, Zimbabwe, and Russia, nations in which we sometimes encounter some combination of censorship, legal prosecution, visa denials, and even physical threats to our journalists. We respond to all of these by doing our best to protect our journalists, by recommitting ourselves to reporting fairly and honestly, by doggedly gathering hard-to-get information – and by remaining impartial. We write very rarely about ourselves and our troubles and very often about the issues that will make a difference in the businesses and lives of our readers and viewers.
We don’t know yet how sharp the Trump administration’s attacks will be over time or to what extent those attacks will be accompanied by legal restrictions on our news-gathering. But we do know that we must follow the same rules that govern our work anywhere, namely:
Do’s:
--Cover what matters in people’s lives and provide them the facts they need to make better decisions.
--Become ever-more resourceful: If one door to information closes, open another one.
--Give up on hand-outs and worry less about official access. They were never all that valuable anyway. Our coverage of Iran has been outstanding, and we have virtually no official access. What we have are sources.
--Get out into the country and learn more about how people live, what they think, what helps and hurts them, and how the government and its actions appear to them, not to us.
--Keep the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles close at hand, remembering that “the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved.”
Don’ts:
--Never be intimidated, but:
--Don’t pick unnecessary fights or make the story about us. We may care about the inside baseball but the public generally doesn’t and might not be on our side even if it did.
--Don’t vent publicly about what might be understandable day-to-day frustration. In countless other countries, we keep our own counsel so we can do our reporting without being suspected of personal animus. We need to do that in the U.S., too.
--Don’t take too dark a view of the reporting environment: It’s an opportunity for us to practice the skills we’ve learned in much tougher places around the world and to lead by example – and therefore to provide the freshest, most useful, and most illuminating information and insight of any news organization anywhere.
This is our mission, in the U.S. and everywhere. We make a difference in the world because we practice professional journalism that is both intrepid and unbiased. When we make mistakes, which we do, we correct them quickly and fully. When we don’t know something, we say so. When we hear rumors, we track them down and report them only when we are confident that they are factual. We value speed but not haste: When something needs more checking, we take the time to check it. We try to avoid “permanent exclusives” – first but wrong. We operate with calm integrity not just because it’s in our rulebook but because – over 165 years – it has enabled us to do the best work and the most good.
In case you hadn't caught on by now, Mr. David Brooks of The New York Times is not really a person.
Mr. David Brooks is a brand. Mr. David Brooks is a profitable multimedia Conservative corporation that specializes in one and only one service. Like a bank or insurance company or funeral home, Mr. David Brooks sells reassurance. He specializes in very high-dollar, high-influence clients. Addlepated university presidents, for example. CEOs. Political professionals. Beltway media assholes. Sclerotic, plutocrat shut-ins. And so on.
His job for the last 20 years has been to reassure his clients that no matter how fucking insane, obstructionist, incompetent, vicious, dishonest, seditious and pig-ignorant the Republican Party may appear to be on any given day, it's not really as bad as you think. In fact, the real Republican Party -- the secret Republican Party which operates behind a curtain that only Mr. David Brooks can peek and sets policy using a code only Mr. David Brooks can decipher -- is doing just fine.
Everything is under control.
And if there are evident cracks below the water-line? Well you can trust Me. David Brooks when he tells you that they're very tiny cracks -- inconsequential really -- and certainly weren't caused by the captain and crew of the USS Saint Ronald Reagan rammed the ship repeatedly into every fucking iceberg in the North Atlantic.
A little more than a week into the Trump presidency, the new Administration has violated our core values, challenged the separation of powers, and tested the very fabric of our Constitution in unprecedented fashion. It is clear that the Supreme Court will be tried in ways that few Courts have been tested since the earliest days of the Republic, when Constitutional questions abounded.
Now more than ever, we need a Supreme Court Justice who is independent, eschews ideology, who will preserve our democracy, protect fundamental rights, and will stand up to a President who has already shown a willingness to bend the Constitution.
The Senate must insist upon 60-votes for any Supreme Court nominee, a bar that was met by each of President Obama’s nominees. The burden is on Judge Neil Gorsuch to prove himself to be within the legal mainstream and, in this new era, willing to vigorously defend the Constitution from abuses of the Executive branch and protect the constitutionally enshrined rights of all Americans.
Given his record, I have very serious doubts about Judge Gorsuch’s ability to meet this standard. Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women’s rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent Justice on the Court.
Make no mistake, Senate Democrats will not simply allow but require an exhaustive, robust, and comprehensive debate on Judge Gorsuch’s fitness to be a Supreme Court Justice.We've got a 60-Vote Minimum on this shit now - your rules, not mine - and it looks like maybe Judge Gorsuch ain't gonna pass muster.
Karen Greenberg, director of Fordham University's Center on National Security, said the girl's death will be a boon to al Qaeda propagandists.
"The perception will be that it's not enough to kill al-Awlaki — that the U.S. had to kill the entire family," she said.What was it 45* said during the Scampaign® ?
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.You kill your way into problems, Don - not out of 'em.
This is your neighborhood. This is your neighborhood after fracking. Any questions? pic.twitter.com/IgAmgUUiRH— Adam Howard (@1AdamHoward) January 31, 2017
ROANOKE, Va. — Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) confirmed Monday that permanent legal residents — green card holders — are subject to President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily banning refugees from entering the United States.
Kaine said he received the clarification during a phone call with officials from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He plans to go to Dulles International Airport Monday afternoon.
He was also told that, unlike other immigrants, green card holders are allowed to board planes and fly to the United States. Once they arrive they will be questioned and can obtain a waiver allowing them into the country.
Kaine said he doesn’t believe the order should apply to these residents at all.
“The fact that they’re still saying the order applies to them but then there’s a waiver of it, it’s still a little bit odd, so I’m confused about that still, so more work to do,” he said during a tour of a library in downtown Roanoke.
He said the same procedure applies to people given special immigrant status, such as translators who worked with the U.S. military.
Kaine said he was told refugee families already approved and working with a resettlement program will be allowed entry at least for the next week or two.
At political event in Blacksburg Sunday night, Kaine said, he learned about a family who fled Syria and have been living in a United Nations refugee camp for almost four years.
Catholic Charities expects them to arrive in Roanoke Thursday, but they feared the family would be detained or barred from entering the country.
Kaine said supports intense vetting, but it should not be based on country of origin, but rather individual circumstances.
“I don’t think you should single out certain countries and especially single out people who have been victimized by war crimes,” he said."Tsk tsk naughty naughty" will not do here, Senator. Get up on your hind legs and make a ruckus.
What are the fucking odds? Seriously? I need a statistician for this. pic.twitter.com/FFrz8Rin3R— Trump vs. the USA (@TomWellborn) January 31, 2017
