jonny5
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Messages
- 27,581
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Location
- Republic of Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Subject: per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated
Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it. Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back.
A) I think it would be naive to think news organizations (left and right) don't work with their respective partiesWikileaks released new emails that came from the hack of the DNC. One of them is a email between Ken Vogel of Politco to Mark Pasutencacahc, National Press Secretary & Deputy Communications Director Democratic National Committee. he fwded it to Luis Miranda, Comms Director.
Vogel to DNC
Inter-DNC
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808
Is this media collusion with DNC or do they really do this when seeking comment?
Wikileaks released new emails that came from the hack of the DNC. One of them is a email between Ken Vogel of Politco to Mark Pasutencacahc, National Press Secretary & Deputy Communications Director Democratic National Committee. he fwded it to Luis Miranda, Comms Director.
Vogel to DNC
Inter-DNC
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808
Is this media collusion with DNC or do they really do this when seeking comment?
Wikileaks released new emails that came from the hack of the DNC. One of them is a email between Ken Vogel of Politco to Mark Pasutencacahc, National Press Secretary & Deputy Communications Director Democratic National Committee. he fwded it to Luis Miranda, Comms Director.
Vogel to DNC
Inter-DNC
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808
Is this media collusion with DNC or do they really do this when seeking comment?
A) I think it would be naive to think news organizations (left and right) don't work with their respective parties
B) This particular case simply looks like Politico has given the DNC a chance to rebut the claims Politico is making. In other words, giving the DNC a chance to tell their side of the story, which should be common in journalism.
I guess I'm not seeing the problem here.
Another right wing horror story that means nothing.
Another right wing horror story that means nothing.
That's not hard to explain at all. Politico did the investigation and the work and they didn't want someone to steal their work.Its simply suspicious. I could see them asking questions, but providing their entire report under a secret agreement not to talk about it?
Wikileaks released new emails that came from the hack of the DNC. One of them is a email between Ken Vogel of Politco to Mark Pasutencacahc, National Press Secretary & Deputy Communications Director Democratic National Committee. he fwded it to Luis Miranda, Comms Director.
Vogel to DNC
Inter-DNC
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808
Is this media collusion with DNC or do they really do this when seeking comment?
Another right wing horror story that means nothing.
A) I think it would be naive to think news organizations (left and right) don't work with their respective parties
B) This particular case simply looks like Politico has given the DNC a chance to rebut the claims Politico is making. In other words, giving the DNC a chance to tell their side of the story, which should be common in journalism.
I guess I'm not seeing the problem here.
That's not hard to explain at all. Politico did the investigation and the work and they didn't want someone to steal their work.
I don't think that's suspicious at all.
That wouldn't help because the writer said the article hadn't gone to the editors yet.What may be an interesting exercise to do, would be to compare the final printed version of this story with the version contained in the email.
I've read the first 5 paragraphs. I'll bold the only difference between the WikiLeaks version and the actual article online.I'm too lazy right now to look for it and take them line by line, but I would like to see the results of anyone that did so.
If you share the article, then other reporters can get wind of the investigation and write an article themselves.Exactly who was going to steal their work? The DNC?
Wow, just a but of an over reaction there, don't ya think? What horror story? He just asked a simple question, giving both sides as possibilities, regarding an email that he provided with the linked page. How is that a horror story, right wing or otherwise?
That's not hard to explain at all. Politico did the investigation and the work and they didn't want someone to steal their work.
I don't think that's suspicious at all.
I think you have this thread confused with another. Politico didn't hack the DNC, they reviewed FEC filings.Politico did the work of hacking the DNC?
Cool.
Didn't think Politico would go anywhere near such a thing.
Are you sure Politico hacked the DNC?
Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties - POLITICOBut less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.
I think you have this thread confused with another. Politico didn't hack the DNC, they reviewed FEC filings.
Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties - POLITICO
I feel like you literally have no idea what you're talking about. But just in case I'm missing something, why do you think Federal Election Commission filings are "hacked information"?oooooooh ... you mean the incredibly difficult investigative work of accepting the hacked information.
I don't believe I've stated anything regarding the level of difficulty. But it IS Politico's work, their reporters did the research and wrote the article. Why would they want to do the work to let someone else get the credit?Yeah, that's tough work.
I feel like you literally have no idea what you're talking. But just in case I'm missing something, why do you think Federal Election Commission filings are "hacked information"?
I don't believe I've stated anything regarding the level of difficulty. But it IS Politico's work, their reporters did the research and wrote the article. Why would they want to do the work to let someone else get the credit?
Wow, just a but of an over reaction there, don't ya think? What horror story? He just asked a simple question, giving both sides as possibilities, regarding an email that he provided with the linked page. How is that a horror story, right wing or otherwise?
So, according to you, reviewing FEC filings is hacking the DNC because I note that reporters routinely give the other side the opportunity to explain their side of the story?It was probably your attempt to defend Politico letting the DNC work up a defense of a story before publication under the work-product-defense excuse.
Says the person who thinks reviewing FEC filings is hacking the DNC.Seemed like a reach at the time
He called it a horror story. Nobody else did. He must think it's a horror story.
Normally reporters call subjects of a story to get their reaction. This is encourage by the Code of Ethics (pdf file) of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Journalists are supposed to remain free of associations that may compromise integrity or damage credibility. This would seem to be a violation of that rule. They are supposed to avoid conflicts of interest and disclose any conflicts that can't be avoided.
So if the only way this reporter could get a story was to let the DNC clear it then he should have told the readers that.
Normally the press doesn't share their draft article with anyone. They would ask for comment on any claims that would be made in a future article, but they would not give the subject of an article the entire article with quotes and names, and allow them to have editorial license.
This seems to me to be an unethical collusion, not simply asking for comment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?