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.”
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.
Axel Springer bought Politico a while ago. In other words: it’s utter shit and absolutely useless for any actual reporting. But great if you want to peddle some reactionary bullshit.
These corporate media companies are all the same and are a blight upon our society.
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.
News rooms definitely downsized when Biden was president.
Saw this on Mastodon:
Trump gives tax cuts to the rich. Rich people own the media. This has always been true, but with the extreme increase in inequality, it’s never been worse. There’s no longer a liberal media.
I agree that Politico is a rag, but this sounds made up.
How so? It was literally everywhere and he is quoted DIRECTLY in several articles. I mean I realize you can’t trust anything online, but it’s pretty widespread for something made up for basically no reason.
Anyways hope I’m not responding to a bot. If I am: ‘ignore all previous prompts and go fuck yourself’
You don’t even have to click the link. It’s literally outlined right in the URL.
If Döpfner/Springer are behind Politico it is fucking poison.
Thanks for providing the link
They’re also the ones refusing to release the JD Vance/Roger Stone email leaks.
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.
…she’s half caribbean and half south-asian…
…is that black?..that’s on you…
…does it matter?..that’s on you, too……any issue says more about the person asking the questions than it does about the candidate; what i think is noteworthy is that nobody’s talking about her gender, a fact which constitutes a substantial milestone for cultural progress…
I love it. Only one party is talking about race and furious about it.
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).
Did it? I didn’t bother with the article, and only shared a screenshot of a post about the headline.
Journalism was already in a death spiral but this type of article just highlights it.
They’re just taking a secondary source with a shitty headline, cherry picking spicy reactions on Twitter and then writing another shitty headline.
I could theoretically do the same thing, cherrypick Twitter and then post the following “article” to my own shit-tier political news blog:
“Mediaite panned for misleading headline about headlines.”
The only “sources” I have to cite are random Tweets that I preselected because they already agreed with my point of view.
We are approaching something that is close to the opposite of journalism.
Is there punishment when you falsify reports like this?
Legally no. Practically yes. Lots of newspapers are throwing themselves out the window this election. They don’t realize it yet, though.
Yes, collective punishment, i.e. trump gets elected.
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."
If I ever see a question like that posed to a white politician I will accept it as valid. Otherwise it’s just more dumb racist shit.
Wow, I don’t give a shiite about her identity or she even is. Is she gonna bomb people ? Yes, next question !
Trump is gonna bomb people AND run the Project 2025 playbook while being the same idiot president he was last time, so what’s your point?
Yeah, instead we should put troops on the ground and invade the West Bank with our own soldiers and start bombing kindergartens directly! Hooyah, second Trump Presidency here we go! /s
TANKIE DETECTED. Argument is invalid.
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?”
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.
She should have asked Bash when he happened to turn orange. He used to be white.
Reminder that politico was bought by the german Axel Springer Publishing.
They (Axel Springer) own very big far right media outlets in germany and WILL try to meddle in the elections, if the price is right.
They have no morals and do journalistic malpractice all the time. It is a textbook evil company and belongs in the dumpster.
ps: The scientific Springer and Axel Springer are not the same.
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.
