Hopefully the mods are okay with a little journalism about journalism so that people know where Politico stands in terms of being a trustworthy source.
The headline in question:
‘Next question’: Harris evades questions about her identity
The background to the headline is from Harris’ recent CNN interview:
“I want to ask you about your opponent, Donald Trump,” Bash said to Harris. “I was a little bit surprised. People might be surprised to hear that you have never interacted with him, met him face-to-face. That’s gonna change soon. But what I wanna ask you about is what he said last month. He suggested that you ‘happened’ to turn Black recently for political purposes, questioning a core part of your identity.”
“Same old, tired playbook,” Harris replied. “Next question, please.”
HOLY SHIT. This is a much bigger deal than people realize. Politico is suggesting that her identity is in question to begin with. It’s not.
She didn’t evade a question about her identity because there is no question about her identity. She passed an opportunity to get upset over Trump’s comments.
“But what about the drammmmaaaaaaa?” - Politico
Feels like how they treated Obama over the birth certificate
Like she said: same old, tired playbook
yeah this is like saying “next question” when someone asks you if you’re an extraterrestrial lizard and then politico saying you “avoid questions about extraterrestrial origins”.
Honest question from a European: Do you guys still have journalism somewhere? It all seems to be political propaganda or outrage clickbait with you guys.
Very little, but there is NPR, which generally attempts to do real journalism.
Which is precisely why Musk has flagged it as possible misinformation on Xitter.
Agree, though their coverage of Bernie’s 2016 presidential run towed the DNC party line, which made me less sure about their neutrality. Now I tend to hit up the BBC if I want US news coverage and I don’t have time to ingest multiple sources.
A lot of British people can tell you all about the BBC’s toeing the government line. But both are a lot less biased than many other Western media sources. NPR’s biggest problem is similar to what the NYT and WaPo do, just to a lesser extent- overcompensating and causing an imbalance toward conservatism in an attempt to look unbiased. WaPo and especially the NYT are far worse though.
Local affiliates and independent papers tend to be much better.
Until they get bought up by Sinclair or Gannett.
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy
Was gonna say, “they still exist?” Lol
Related question: what do you guys think of the associated press?
American here: their goal is clearly factual reporting, and I don’t see too often where they’ve missed the mark. Nobody’s free of bias, but they’re pretty good at balancing theirs out.
There are a lot of ‘content creators’ that pose as journalists.
There are journalists that do great work but since their stories can run counter to a narrative, it can be more difficult to find those articles.
We have capitalism that is regulated less and less with every Repub admin, so no, unfortunately.
I get most of my news from Reuters (which is UK-based I think). I used to read NPR but I think Reuters has more quality content. Beyond that, the Associated Press I guess, and that’s all I really trust.
The Onion too, for when I need to forget how fucked we all are as a species.
Most of our real journalism lives online or is parroted from foreign journalists
We have it less and less too here in the EU.
IMO.
Get off your high horse, you guys are just as bad
so that people know where Politico stands in terms of being a trustworthy source
I just assume all media actually want a Trump victory, because they get money writing articles and the money was good his first term. If Trump is good at anything, it’s making headlines.
Keep in mind race is very important to conservatives. VERY IMPORTANT. to them, once an association is made … It can not be changed. And you can’t be 2 races at once. its very important to them and they have lots of rules about it.
I heard if you whisper “intersectionality” to an unsuspecting conservative, their heart just stops.
If only.
No they get confused since they arent driving then just try to floor the pedal anyway.
Hence their ongoing efforts to ban Critical Race Theory.
How is plainly calling it out as the bullshit that it is “evasion?” That headline isn’t just misleading; it’s a straight-up lie.
They asked for her reaction to Trump being extremely racist.
Politico - “Okay but what if Trump is right?”
Bash said: "But what I wanna ask you about is what he said last month. He suggested that you ‘happened’ to turn Black recently for political purposes, questioning a core part of your identity.”
Where was the question? That’s simply a statement about what Trump said.
Politico’s headline is outrageous, but what was Bash even trying to do here? Because it reads like she was trying to ask (without asking) if Harris is black, which is just as weird and absurd as Trump’s original comment.
Harris’s reply is great because it applies both to Trump’s racism and the problem with journalists giving these comments anything more than ridicule.
Where was the question? That’s simply a statement about what Trump said.
All of Dana Bash’s questions were just Donald Trump talking points.
This is a horrible take. Bash lobbed this question in as a total softball. Dana is an excellent interviewer and she deliberately framed the question this way so as to allow Harris to be free to frame it with her response; instead of trapping Harris with a strongly premised question.
Acting like there’s any legitimate questions about Harris being a black person is inherently racist and doing the bidding of Trump. I didn’t think very highly of Politico before this but unless they fire whoever wrote that headline they are dead to me now.
Headline is still up on their front page even:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/30/harris-cnn-interview-race-gender-00176929
"Harris sidesteps the spotlight when it comes to her identity
The vice president makes her case on identity implicit. Black women are OK with that."
That seemed like the entirely right answer. It was a bullshit question that didn’t need dignified with a response.
The Harris campaign has consistently handled Trump with a deftness and results-oriented system that we haven’t seen from anyone else. It’s impressive in both its success and its consistency.
These corporate media companies are all the same and are a blight upon our society.
She should have asked Bash when he happened to turn orange. He used to be white.
The headline is, “Harris sidesteps spotlight when it comes to her identity.”
No it’s “Donald Trump’s attacks on harris’ race fail to land”
For once, this complaint is fully justified. She answered the question and said ‘next’ and they’re implying she didn’t answer the question by just saying ‘next.’
I feel like sometimes “out of context” means they didn’t report on additional relevant nuance in an answer but I’m sympathetic to headline authors who need punchy headlines, you can’t have a full 20 minute answer in a headline. But this was a 6 word response and they took the last two and pretended she didn’t say the first 4. That is bad.
The article is fine, tbh, it’s just talking about how Harris is putting less emphasis on the historic nature of her candidacy versus Clinton in 2016. The headline was hot garbage though, just trying to bait those rage-clicks (which obviously worked).
