I literally saw WaPo's front page feature what some random HuffPost blogger emailed to a Clinton staffer a year ago on Sanders.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
: That's overkill. No question. Homepage presentation is largely out of reporters' hands.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ericgeller
: And frankly I think this goes to the heart of it: How is reporting being packaged and displayed? Headlines, page placement, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ericgeller
Wikileaks beat should've had one pooler to look for corruption, fraud, or conflict-of-interest. Rest was deliberate distraction.
2 replies 3 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @ericgeller
Since it was public at the same time, there was no need for competitive coverage of what bad word Neera Tanden used, ffs.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
: We'll agree to disagree that "public at the same time" means "no one should write about this."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ericgeller
No, that's not what I said. Write on the important stuff.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @ericgeller
I saw maybe three real stories from it: Qatar donation; Foundation conflict-of-interests; text of speeches to Goldman.
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
: WikiLeaks posted emails of staffers workshopping Clinton's stance on encryption. I wrote about it several times. Fair or no?
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ericgeller
Look, encryption is interesting to me, but not really. She had a public statement--the process is interesting but not big news.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
the most important power journalists have is what we should focus on. It's the age of info glut. Need to adjust.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.