Too big to cover alone: Newsrooms team up
axios.com
axios.com
When dealing with large complex issues you need to collaborate to try and provide accurate reporting. It's best to operate under the assumption that most reporting is incomplete or it contains inaccuracies lest you fall for the trap of believing you have a perfectly accurate picture of reality.
For the pandora papers, ICIJ coordinated and worked with journalists from 91 outlets, including The Washington Post, Frontline, The Guardian, Le Monde, Süddeutsche Zeitung, and more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora_Papers#Participating_m...
There's also:
That is such a shame, and reflects poorly on those who saw fit to break ranks. However, the overall idea is sound and, I think, positive and encouraging.
I've worked on editorial CMS tools linked to interactive planning modules (open source, and with a stripped-down SaaS variant in the offing) that could be spun up really quickly for such cross-outlet access/collaboration use cases.
The collusion is a far lesser problem than getting the story at all, that capacity is diminishing every year.
That depends on whether you're the pawn or the billionaire media owner
This is pooling resources to get an essential but hugely expensive, difficult and time-consuming job done (ie inform a public about things affecting them, their society, economy, government etc) than it is about a dog pack targeting an enemy and ripping it to shreds. Even in the Facebook case, there's ample scope and enough evidence to say that lights need to be shone on the activities of something so pervasive, ubiquitous and influential at a global societal scale. Other collaborations, such as Pandora, Panama mentioned in the article, don't even have an entity that one might suggest was a "hated competitor".
Collaboration between news outlets to cover issues too big/expensive to handle is not a new idea; Associated Press in the US and Australian Associated Press in Australia were collaborative efforts between news outlets. AP was created to cover the costs of transmitting information during a war [1]:
The Associated Press was formed in May 1846[7] by five daily newspapers in New York City to share the cost of transmitting news of the Mexican–American War.[8] The venture was organized by Moses Yale Beach (1800–68), second publisher of The Sun, joined by the New York Herald, the New York Courier and Enquirer, The Journal of Commerce, and the New York Evening Express.
And AAP was created to share the costs of cable technology [2]:
Australia was first linked to international telegraph services by a submarine cable that linked Java to Darwin, which was laid by the British-Australian Telegraph Company, and completed on 18 November 1871.[5] The Eastern states were connected through Adelaide on the completion of the Australian Overland Telegraph Line in 1872.[6][7] As a result, the time it took to transmit news from Europe to Australia was dramatically reduced, having previously taken weeks or months to arrive via post on ships, news could now be transmitted in just hours by telegraph.[6][8] Anticipating that the cost of sending messages would be high, the Melbourne newspaper The Argus formed an association with The Sydney Morning Herald, creating an agreement with the Reuters news agency for the transmission of news to Australia.
These associations were formed out of a need to co-operate in order to do a job. It is no different today. News media are no longer awash with money; resources have to be pooled. Even in better times, outlets would divvy up coverage of Olympic and other global sporting events that were too big for one organisation to handle. Also for wars, disasters, elections, coups etc in remote territories.
The ad hoc alliances referred to in the article address newer and more urgent needs. Big stories requiring massive data collection efforts, and then the analysis of millions of data points and documents gathered are truly beyond the capabilities of any individual news outlet, hence co-operation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press#History
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Associated_Press
Newsrooms have collaborated on stories for a long time, especially when large amounts of data are involved. It's near impossible to do reporting on these issues (Facebook, Panama/Paradise/Pandora papers, etc) without bringing large amounts of journalists to bear, quickly.
Or, I suppose, you could run with the global conspiracy idea.
This is a curiously-repeated line. The nastiness isn't the crux of the issue. It's the core of the issue. But what puts Facebook front and centre is its abysmal track record of lying.
The topic is already quite sensitive and divisive. Was it really necessary to use the image with a gun covered in american flag? If this is not fanning the flames of divisions, what is? And now they want to collude?
The way I understand it is this: if you have multiple companies covering the same topic using their own channels, then someone has to try to stick out in the variety. This could be good or this could be bad. There's a lot of ways I can think to interpret that image, but I'd say it's probably planted to agitate liberals. That's a company trying to stick out in a negative way.
If they work together, they can produce common narratives -- even if they're wrong, but especially under certain pervasive ideologies that may be trendy at the time. The whole Covington incident and the outpouring of blind rage was a fairly good example of this very thing. Entire reporting fueled off of a tweet and other companies speculative reports. This tells me there's something deeper wrong, or at least - this is not the place to institute a patch.
For those that need an update on Covington: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memoria...
It just dropped out of existence all of a sudden. For a couple of straight that made up what felt like 50% of everything I heard of coming out of most news corporations and politicians, talkshows, twiter, everywhere. Then suddenly they all pretty much in unison stopped talking about it.
This is going off topic I realize, but it's bugged me. Does nobody care to follow up on this or find out who knew what and when and what went wrong? We were assured many times there was ample evidence of this by many politicians and journalists. So either it's been kept secret and even seemingly hidden from special council Mueller, or else it doesn't exist and it was all a huge coordinated lie. I don't really see a 3rd option, so anything would be a huge story I would have thought. Nobody seems to care though.
EDIT: I have to ask who is down voting this. Am I not supposed to be wondering about this massively weird thing that happened and has apparently been memory holed? Is it verboten to ask the wrong questions?
It would be more accurate to say that nobody who matters cares.
Manufacturing Consent was broadly correct, but now add the surprising power of the Twitter echo chamber, where most American journalists spend their time. That, and Trump got eyeballs.
The only thing I can think of is the governing class was shocked and terrified by Trump winning the election and was scrambling for some kind of narrative, and so a random accusation used in the campaign became a Schelling point for "the resistance". It was not the result of cool deliberation, or thoughtful investigation into the facts. It was a cry of panic.
But once it became the thing people rallied around, the news couldn't just backtrack and say "Yeah, this is cringe. Please ignore."
So they had to keep pushing it, or at least pretend to treat it like it was a real story, and it was used as the cloak for impeachment and other types of political battles. This was the time when independent reporters like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi went full WTF mode on US news media, and were responsible for some of the most enjoyable picking apart of this narrative. Much better than the whole propaganda surrounding the invasion of Iraq, which was a war completely prosecuted on word-association - in which "Saddam" was pronounced next to "Al Qaeda" over and over again, in press conference after press conference and news reports ad nauseam until many otherwise honest people started saying "Yeah, they must be colluding together."
But that was nothing compared to hordes of angry New England soccer moms wearing pussy hats marching against KGB-puppets seizing control of their nation. Someone needs to make a movie.
But now there is no need for the "resistance" narrative and I'm sure almost everyone who participated in pushing that hoax turns a bit red when they look back on it. That's why you are not hearing a lot about it, just as people would prefer you not spend a lot of time thinking about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda.
If that's all it was, just going after a few lackeys, do you think it would have been better if they had come out right away and said "we have never seen any evidence or suggestion that Trump or his campaign was involved in any wrongdoing surrounding the election or Russian collusion, all we are investigating is Cohen and Manafort's finances and taxes? You don't see any problems with how things were conducted?
Well firstly, why couldn't they do that? And secondly, why would they do that? If/when they realized it turned out to be wrong, doesn't the story then become who got it wrong and why? Why did no media organization start asking those questions?
But secondly it wasn't just the news corporations involved in this. People like Schiff, sitting on the powerful house intelligence committee, were coming out and saying they had "ample evidence" Trump had colluded with Putin. Of course this is a newsworthy thing to report on, but where is that evidence? Did Adam never have any, or is he now hiding it (maybe he's been blackmailed by Putin too?) Why did Mueller's investigation string out for years only to come out and say they found no evidence to substantiate the claim Trump or campaign conspired with Russians? Why was that never clarified that the investigation did not actually have any evidence yet?
And why haven't any real journalists from actual news organizations seriously been looking into these things?
Just really weird that there was this massive story that was front page news literally for years that pretty much got memory-holed overnight one day.
If it bleeds, it leads was 20th century. Now what we have is fearmongering and outrage soundbite peddlers.
People don’t talk about Trump that much any more either. That’s just how the world works. It moves on very, very quickly. Almost everything gets memory holed. Besides 9/11 and a few other major major things, past stuff doesn’t get talked about much.
Why is no one talking about whatever it was with Hunter Biden any more? Or Hillary’s emails? What about those caravans that were all supposed to be coming countless different times. None of this stuff is discussed any more.
I’m not sure if you’re pulling an elaborate troll job here. The way you worded portions of this post is exactly how certain politicians also speak. The feigned surprise of it being all the rage then dropping out of existence. The questioning of why no one is doing something, etc.
Have you read the Mueller report? It explicitly says that they did not find evidence that Trump or his associates colluded (conspired) with Russia.
There were people who who weren't Trump who went to jail for things that did not include colluding with Russia or attempting to cheat in the election. I can't see how that possibly "settles" the matter about Trump, what happened to Trump being a Russian agent? What happened to him colluding with Putin to hack the election?
> People don’t talk about Trump that much any more either.
Well they do strangely enough, but I'm talking about after the investigation _while Trump was still president_! Not just today. They certainly kept talking about Trump, it's just they memory holed the Russia thing and moved on.
> Why is no one talking about whatever it was with Hunter Biden any more?
Good question I guess, lots of unanswered things or weirdness happens, I'm not saying this is the only thing strange that has ever happened in politics. I'm talking about what I think is a much bigger and stranger recent issue.
> Or Hillary’s emails?
Well that was litigated. The FBI found evidence of violations of classified information handling statutes but decided not to pursue it. That's basically what was alleged by Hillary opponents, wasn't it? Do you not see the difference? They had some evidence of wrongdoing possibly a crime and certainly incompetence. It might have been politicized and exaggerated to some degree, but it wasn't like it came out of thin air. Imagine exact same Hillary email scandal playing out the same way with the only difference being being no emails ever leaked or stored on private servers and nobody seeing any suggestion of that happening. But they all insisted they had seen them. Wouldn't that be weird?
> What about those caravans that were all supposed to be coming countless different times. None of this stuff is discussed any more.
I'm not sure about caravans and stuff.
> I’m not sure if you’re pulling an elaborate troll job here. The way you worded portions of this post is exactly how certain politicians also speak. The feigned surprise of it being all the rage then dropping out of existence. The questioning of why no one is doing something, etc.
Ad hominem. And I'm not saying one or the other or both "sides" don't do it, or there has been no other examples ever of malfeasance or lying in government or news media. If you don't accept this was a massive thing for the country far far bigger and graver than Hillary's mishandling of classified information then fine, but you really can't accept that someone else might think that?
It seems you have no curiosity about where Adam Schiff of the house IC committee has hidden all that ample evidence he said he knew about. If he covered it up, if he was lying from the start, doesn't really matter to you. Anybody who asks about it must be a trolle who "sounds exactly like certain politicians"?! That's just fine for you either way you don't want to know what the deal was and you get upset by other people asking about it. Strange attitude.
That's not what the report says. I encourage anyone interested to read it or a summary from a credible source.
The rest of the parent rehashes tired old Trump propaganda. Let's move on.
Yes it is. Is this a credible enough source for you?
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download
Verbatim, p. 181
For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question ofjoint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term“collusion.” The Officeconsidered in particular whethercontacts between Trump Campaign officials andRussia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crimeof conspiracy—either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1951(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establishthat the contacts describedin VolumeI, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commitany substantive violation of federal criminal law—including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371’s offenses clause.
The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under Section 371’s defraud clause. That clause criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the U.S. government or its agencies through deceitful or dishonest means. See Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 861 (1966); Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924); see also United States v. Concord Mgmt. & Consulting LLC, 347 F. Supp. 3d 38, 46 (D.D.C. 2018). The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials—or between such officials and Russia-linked individuals—to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of agovernment agency during the campaign or transition period. And, as discussed in VolumeI, Section V.A, supra, the investigation did not identify evidence thatanyCampaignofficial or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra. Accordingly, the Office did not charge anyCampaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based onthe Russia-related contacts described in SectionIV above.
p. 183
he investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge that any individual affiliated withthe TrumpCampaign acted as an agentofa foreign principal within themeaning of FARA or, in terms of Section 951, subject to the direction or control of the governmentof Russia, or any official thereof. In particular, the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian government—or atits direction,control, or request—during the relevant time period.
-- end copy
Can you quote and reference the exact part of the document where they claim to have found evidence that Trump or campaign associates conspired with Russia?
> The rest of the parent rehashes tired old Trump propaganda. Let's move on.
No it doesn't, and no I won't. If you can't cope with discussing it or people asking questions, you can just move on. It's not propaganda to ask why Adam Schiff did not provide Mueller with any of that ample evidence he allegedly saw as an intelligence committee member. Nobody has asked that. Nobody has asked why Schiff either covered it up or lied about it. Was Schiff himself mislead by intelligence agencies? That's such a huge newsworthy story, it's not old or tired. Asking questions is not propaganda, you are the one engaging in propaganda slinging around your unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks.
Or people were gullible, keen to sell an anti-Trump story, overestimated the chances of something being true, were embarrassed about it later...?
I think that story is mostly dead but Matt Taibbi will probably tell you about it, in between ranting.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/m...
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence.
2) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances.
3) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort.
4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI.
36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations
37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign, and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story.
It wasn't all that many people at all really and none of the ones vaguely related to Trump had anything to do with colluding with Putin or hacking the election. Where was the evidence that kicked all this off? Where was the evidence that kept it all going for nearly 3 years? Even right after the Mueller report was released nobody retracted anything and everybody falsely claimed that it did not exonerate Trump, (which it pretty clearly did of the main thrust of the investigation and media circus that had gone on which was of Trump colluding with Putin to hack the election, for which Mueller stated clearly they found no substantial evidence for). Then everybody just kind of forgot about it and moved on. None of that strikes you as slightly odd? All seems above board, no unanswered questions left. Not concerned that maybe Putin got to Mueller and Schiff as well?
Doesn't strike you as even slightly strange that all the news corporations who were banging the "ample evidence" that Trump colluded with Putin drum for years were suddenly perfectly fine with the Mueller report which said that no such evidence had ever been found? Not strange that any of these trusted journalists and truth seekers were placated by that and all in unison decided that was the end of the story, nothing more to investigate?
The rest were all charged for things like making false statements, tax evasion, etc. Given the general witchunts and prosecutorial abuse of that era, you'd think they'd be able to convict just one person for something related to "hacking the election" or "colluding" with Russians.