Subscribe: Comments for TU Editors' Blog
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
comment rex  comment  media  news  president  rex smith  rex  simply  smith what’s  smith  speech  trump  what’s simply  what’s 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments for TU Editors' Blog

Comments for TU Editors' Blog

A gateway to reach the editors who make decisions about our news coverage.

Last Build Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 16:35:16 +0000


Comment on Rex Smith: Free speech, pulpit speech and tax laws by Carol Hall

Sat, 04 Feb 2017 16:35:16 +0000

Mr Smith's columns are always thoughtful, well reasoned and worth reading.But with referral to the survey that indicates that a third of Americans this kind one has to be Christian to really be American. Any survey or poll can easily be thoroughly skewed, depending on the populace surveyed. (If I worked hard enough at it, I could probably come up with a survey indicating the world is flat)

Comment on Rex Smith: When what’s said simply is not true by theshakes

Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:05:32 +0000

I agree in not calling them 'lies' only insofar as a 'lie' implies that the person knowingly made a false statement. And while we can all surmise that the inventor of the term 'truthful hyperbole' most likely knows that the statement is false, it behooves the press to simply present the facts and not try to decipher the intent behind the statement.

Comment on Rex Smith: When what’s said simply is not true by Ringsghost

Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:28:36 +0000

Where were you the last 8 years? Suddenly, now that a Republican is president, you want to cover lies again.

Comment on Rex Smith: When what’s said simply is not true by Efus

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 20:52:32 +0000

I do think Trump is making a false claim about the numbers of illegals voting. I've no issues with being undignified and saying he lied. But, it's such a strong word that I think it does call for a look at the usage by the media in other circumstances. If you accept the premise of non-bias in the media, then it follows that the verbiage would be similar for Trump's ideological opposites, yes? For example, how did the media frame the previous president, secretary state, and Susan Rice, telling the country and, in the case of Sec Clinton, parents of victims, that the Benghazi attack was done because of a videographer and not terror, knowing full well that this was not the truth? Or, Sec Clinton saying she never sent classified email...changed to marked classified...changed to not marked classified at the time..changed to...? This is not to bring up scandals or re-hash old arguments. It's just that those are examples of demonstrable falsehoods and to see if the words used to describe them were similar to those used for the current president's.

Comment on Rex Smith: When what’s said simply is not true by Al Cannistraro

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:19:03 +0000

Your column suggests (or inspires) questions regarding impeachment (Art II Sec. 4) and presidential disability (Amendment XXV, Sec. 4). It will have to get much, much worse before it gets better, I fear. But it could happen.

Comment on Rex Smith: When what’s said simply is not true by Al Cannistraro

Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:08:39 +0000

I believe the speech you are referring to is this one, about the press. It often is cited (distorted?) by haters on the right in support of their beliefs and values.: But there is another speech that also might fit the description, one that some claim to have been a trigger for an assassination conspiracy. It's a speech in which JFK put forth his thoughts and ideas about the possibility of peace in JFK's own time. (It is interesting to me to contemplate how times and relevant realities have changed since fifty years ago.)

Comment on Rex Smith: When what’s said simply is not true by Robert W. Redmond

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 17:45:01 +0000

Although a devotee of the printed media, as well as a champion of the "Fourth Estate" in its role as "a check on government overreach," I sheepishly admit to seldom reading editorials. When I do, it's usually an afterthought once I conclude the news and sports reports. Lately, however, my attention has been drawn to editorials commenting on the "best practices" of media reporting and the unfortunate lapses in that reporting that we have witnessed during the recently concluded election cycle and subsequent to the inauguration. In particular, I was greatly dismayed over the unsubstantiated news report concerning an alleged Russian dossier detailing improprieties by President Trump that was included in a briefing packet for members of Congress. I do not share our President's politics, but even a rudimentary understanding of journalistic ethics would have suppressed the publication of such a salacious report that served no purpose other than to embarrass the President. Those unsubstantiated allegations never should have seen the light of day, and Rex Smith said so. Of course, the recent phenomena referred to as "fake news," fueled in large part, I suspect, by what one White House spokesperson categorized as "alternative facts," has also piqued my ire. Conscientious reporting mandates that facts presented, from whatever source derived, be scrutinized for accuracy before appearing on the printed page or otherwise reported. Spreading misinformation is not journalism; it's propaganda, and Rex Smith has said as much. Going forward, I think I will pay more attention to editorials.

Comment on Rex Smith: When what’s said simply is not true by Thomas Hoey

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:10:37 +0000

Your analysis is correct and is true. I recently found a speech by President Kennedy and even though it is over 50 years old it is relevant for our times. I can't put the link here for this 5 minute speech, but if you look on or google JFK - The Speech That Killed Him, it is easily found. The speech deals with the importance of a free press that can be critical of an administration and how it is key to our Republic's survival.

Comment on Rex Smith: When what’s said simply is not true by RZH

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 11:58:01 +0000

I agree that the notion of voter fraud to this extent is far fetched and I believe Trump is just too narcisstic to accept reality. What I do wonder ,though ,is whether there are sufficient controls in all the States to prevent folks such who aren't registered , let alone non- citizens ,from voting ? That is the question that does not seem addressed . A national voting database might be in order but the Republicalns would claim overreach and local boards would resent the oversight. If the systems are in place and adequate and can be or are being verified then Trump's argument is nonexistent. As far as questioning his actions, the press has every right to do that as long as it presents it fairly and adequately. The issue is with the so-called TV network "news" where you have Rachel Maddow - Sean Hannity types claiming they are journalists but adding additional spin to the story.

Comment on Rex Smith: A president stands alone on a promise by Albert J

Mon, 23 Jan 2017 04:46:18 +0000

Your "essay" Rex, is about as subtle a "left handed compliment" as I can ever recall reading. You might consider, although I'm not hopeful you actually will, "(media) attacks are surely part of the reason that public support for the media is even lower than it is for Trump ( or most other public entities)", but the cause of that almost universal negative perception is largely an unending sequence of "self inflicted wounds" of biased and constantly negative "cheap shots" injected into so many, flagrantly transparent (supposedly) unbiased reports. Even attempted subtlety has largely been abandoned, If you are honestly seeking to find a cause, of the media's squandered respect and journalist integrity, you might look for a mirror, or read your reportings from an impartial perspective.