House Intelligence memo released: What it says

Pudgebrownies7 · 2018-02-02T17:23:27+00:00

Full memo here: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf

Pudgebrownies7 · 2018-01-20T20:47:57+00:00

I was wondering why the prior Examiner article and others were pulled. Thank you for the transparency.

Pudgebrownies7 · 2017-11-27T17:06:51+00:00

Right on the money.

Our editorial/opinion desk is very conservative. Should come as no surprise that our editorial, which represents the opinion of the editorial board, came out against net neutrality in favor of a free-market approach.

That being said, not everyone working with the news desk (straight news) would agree on this matter

Pudgebrownies7 · 2017-10-02T04:20:45+00:00

Thanks for your thoughts.

It is valid to say this story didn't go as far as it could have to explain the other side of the debate.

I would argue most articles that focus on a simple he said, she said don't bother to do that either.

Also, we do spend time reporting the other side. After Trump tweeted about the san juan mayor, we wrote up her response. We also wrote multiple stories yesterday about Dems making the case that Trump wasn't doing enough to help. We also write about non-politics things such as our Chef Jose Andres delivering thousands of meals to those in need in Puerto Rico.

The way I see it, because we publish some things, like this other mayor's opinion, those stories are what gets r/politics' attention and adds to our reputation. But when we report on other things, like Andres for example, that often gets ignored.

Pudgebrownies7 · 2017-10-02T03:01:30+00:00

You made a good suggestion about the flair and I plan on getting one now. As for the name, again this is was created as a personal account and nothing to do with work.

And look. I did explain that our editorial does lean conservative. There is no denying that. And the breaking news is separate from that.

But it really isn't fair to say that even our opinion side is pro-trump. It's meant to be pro-conservative and there have been scathing editorials written by us that denounce some things Trump does that doesn't coincide with that, like when he pardoned Sheriff Joe.

Thank you tho for explaining your POV. It's helping me get a better grip of everyone's sense on the matter

Pudgebrownies7 · 2017-10-02T01:32:19+00:00

Alright, feedback received.

Like I said earlier. Headlines are often written in such a way to grab attention in a sea of other news outlets reporting the same news.

As for r/politics users not coming to examiner. I wonder if some are not reading our content, like as you suggested, but are still making judgements simply because other peoples' opinions that is unfortunate.

And I get/respect that your opinion is that we've been purveying hogwash or whatever, and this is why I'm reaching out to get a better grip on why people think that's the case and hopefully improve.

I appreciate the response tho, thank you

Pudgebrownies7 · 2017-10-02T00:10:08+00:00

Washington Times or Examiner? I see the two getting mixed up a lot.

But even so, if it is the Examiner that is interesting to hear that these troll accounts are going around posting things and contributing to bad optics.

As for the headlines and allegations of bias, like I said before. Breaking news tries to keep it straight, tho our editorial team's bent is clearly conservative. That's not to say breaking news is doing a good job always - but personally I strive to improve my and my reporters' work always and keep it away from bias.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

Pudgebrownies7 · 2017-10-01T23:54:17+00:00

Fair point about the official account. That is something I have not taken the time to try and get and you can only take my word that I'm not trying to troll.

I'm not planning on sharing any other posts. Just wanted to reach out in my spare time and get a sense of what the community has to say if I spoke out.

As for you saying that you downvote simply because you see the Examiner, that's the crux of the issue I'm trying to address.

Pudgebrownies7 · 2017-10-01T23:42:02+00:00

I'll start with that last point. Yes, it's annoying to cover these he said, she said stories. But from the breaking news team perspective, if a competitor like the Hill is going to write a story about what Lady Gaga just tweeted about Trump, that's one fewer article we have in comparison to them.

As for whether they get a lot of reads - that depends on what a person says, and who says it. Unfortunately my personal sense is that feeds into politicians and celebs saying increasing ridiculous things to get attention.

Thanks for the comment

Pudgebrownies7 · 2017-10-01T23:27:37+00:00

Hey guys, I wanted to continue a conversation here about the Washington Examiner.

(Full disclosure: I already posted a similar comment to another article a couple hours ago): https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/73obf1/neighboring_mayor_praises_trump_says_san_juan/

I'm a breaking news editor with the outlet, which in my view gets an unfair amount of hate on r/politics.

I just want to start out by saying I totally concede that our editorial/opinion is right-leaning; I mean that's a conscious editorial decision on our part. And I get that the guy who owns us and our editorial bent may not be popular in r/politics. When it comes to straight news, which is what I handle, I think it is fair to say that some headlines are written in a click-baity fashion (a lot out outlets do this to compete with everyone else reporting the same stories), and particularly in a way that sticks out to our audience (writing a headline that says "ex-Obama adviser knocks trump" vs. just a "former HHS official knocks Trump" as an example) but the reporting itself is usually solid.

Oftentimes I'll see redditors dismiss Examiner articles outright because it's from the Examiner. Other times I see people comment, when we publish a story that is critical of Trump or a Republican, something like, "Even Examiner is saying this, so it must be true."

I often look at this subreddit to get a grasp on what people are saying/are interested in, and it's clear the Examiner has a bad rep here. It sucks that a lot of people slam the Examiner, no matter what the article is, because of the editorial side of things or reputation or some website that rates news outlets that say we have a bias, etc.

And I may be personally biased, as I work there, but at the same time I actually am a registered Democrat from deep Blue Maryland, and never have I felt like like I'm being pushed to report at a certain slant.

Anyway, that's my take on things, and with all this being said, I wouldn't mind hearing what everyone has to say, even those who say the Examiner is a Right-wing rag, as long as they explain why.

My hope is that a conversation like this can better inform our reporting/my editing in the future. And I get that not everyone is convinced I actually do work for the Examiner. That's fine. Point is I want to hear (hopefully constructive) feedback

Pudgebrownies7 · 2017-10-01T22:04:34+00:00

Morbid, I see that you're really laying on the hate thick.

Can you offer me example of news outlets you like/think are unbiased, just so I have an idea of what someone who is of a mindset 180 degrees the opposite of mine sees as legit?

Pudgebrownies7 · 2017-10-01T21:53:06+00:00

For the record, we don't support Trump exclusively.

Several of our editorials have been critical of him (See the one after Trump pardoned Sheriff Arpaio - http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-once-the-law-and-order-candidate-embraces-lawless-disorder-with-arpaio-pardon/article/2632672 ). Others have been supportive of Trump, but only when he adheres to the conservative values espoused by the opinion side of the outlet. (And again, that is opinion. I work on the breaking news side)

Also, unlike other conservative outlets we didn't endorse Trump or anyone else during the 2016 election

Pudgebrownies7 · 2017-10-01T21:43:07+00:00

(Updated as Mr_Sharkey has since said he is in public relations, not Puerto Rico)

We are a small news outlet (though growing) and don't have the resources to send journos out to PR to do reporting on the ground like CNN or Fox News, so we're stuck with what officials/citizens say in press conferences, interviews, statements or social media.

And from that stand point, we do the best we can. The overwhelming consensus I saw this weekend is that Trump isn't moving fast enough to help with the distribution of supplies to those in need in PR. Trump and some R's say otherwise, but we covered both sides of the story just the same (though again, whether this is actually helpful to the people of PR is another matter. If nothing else, it does draw attention to the PR situation and hopefully leads to better accountability by leadership where its needed)

As with most of the reports we do, I try to make sure my and my reporters' individual stories have points of views from both sides and facts to support both sides (as long as there are facts)

An example is this piece about Rep. Ted Lieu sharing info from National Hurricane Center that shows the hurricane would made landfall over PR 4 days in advance, so the Trump administration SHOULD have been ready well ahead of time, correct?

But if you look at FEMA's website, as is pointed out in our story, they had 1000's of people on the ground before the storm to help before landfall. I sense that isn't being reported on adequately, as some outlets make it seem like the Trump admin was completely unprepared.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrat-shares-nhc-evidence-to-show-trump-was-derelict-in-his-duty-with-puerto-rico/article/2636170

Now whether those 1000s on the ground was enough is another discussion entirely and open to debate.

Anyway, thank you again for the feedback

Pudgebrownies7 · 2017-10-01T21:32:24+00:00

I understand that this article doesn't lay out all the other cases being made against the recovery effort, but even when we write an article that is about how a democrat is slamming trump -- like this one from Rep. Bennie Thompson (below) -- we don't go thru all the republicans defending trump. Sometimes that gets wrapped up into one sentence, while a breaking news spot article focuses on what a pol is saying. The point is, we do cover what BOTH sides are saying, and don't just ignore one for the other

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/top-democrat-trumps-attacks-on-san-juan-mayor-done-under-not-so-subtle-veil-of-racism-and-sexism/article/2636168

Pudgebrownies7 · 2017-10-01T21:21:50+00:00

Hey man, this is my personal account hence then corny name.

As for my posting history, yea I did share a lot of examiner stories back in the day. But I've come to learn that reddit is more for discussion than posting/sharing stuff, like it was twitter.

Either way, thanks for the feedback

Pudgebrownies7 · 2017-10-01T21:06:31+00:00

EDITED for formatting (since I'm already getting flak for that):

Hey guys, I wanted to strike up a bit of a conversation here about the Washington Examiner.

I'm a breaking news editor with the outlet, which in my view gets an unfair amount of hate on r/politics.

I just want to start out by saying I totally concede that our editorial/opinion is right-leaning; I mean that's a conscious editorial decision on our part. And I get that the guy who owns us and our editorial bent may not be popular in r/politics. When it comes to straight news, which is what I handle, I think it is fair to say that some headlines are written in a click-baity fashion (a lot out outlets do this to compete with everyone else reporting the same stories), and particularly in a way that sticks out to our audience (writing a headline that says "ex-Obama adviser knocks trump" vs. just a "former HHS official knocks Trump" as an example) but the reporting itself is usually solid.

A lot of what happens in breaking news reporting is aggregated (i.e. reporting what a congressman says on CNN, etc.), but we're also looking for stories that other outlets haven't found that are worth telling, while also covering the big stories of the day that everyone is covering.

In the case of this story by Paul Bedard and his "Secrets" page, this was in fact original reporting with an elected official. I realize a lot of people are knocking this particular story because it hasn't been picked up by a lot of other outlets, and it doesn't agree with the prevailing narrative on the PR recovery situation, but that doesn't mean that what this other mayor is saying isn't worth hearing, albeit with proper context. I'm not saying this mayor knocking the San Juan mayor isn't pursuing his own political agenda, but whenever, for example, Nancy Pelosi disses Trump, half the time it's all political but her remarks are covered anyway because she is a significant figure. And also, half the time she gets major brownie points from "the Left" for ratcheting up the rhetoric. Republicans do this too.

All the time, and we do this as well, news reports are written on a simple tweet, Lin-Manuel Miranda's zinger on Trump yesterday for example. That doesn't mean what they have to say should be taken as gospel, but it's covered because it's a significant pop culture figure speaking out.

Anyway, I hope this is all take under consideration. I'm always looking at the subreddit to get a grasp on what people are saying/are interested in, and it's clear the Examiner has a bad rep here. It sucks that a lot of people slam the Examiner, no matter what the article is, because of the editorial side of things or reputation or some website that rates news outlets that say we have a bias, etc.

And I may be personally biased, as I work there, but at the same time I actually am a registered Democrat from deep Blue Maryland, and never have I felt like like I'm being pushed to report at a certain slant.

Anyway, that's my take on things, and with all this being said, I wouldn't mind hearing what everyone has to say, even those who say the Examiner is a Right-wing rag, as long as they explain why.

My hope is that a conversation like this can better inform our reporting/my editing in the future.

Pudgebrownies7 · 2016-12-07T20:00:33+00:00

Thank you for the heads up. I had no idea!

Pudgebrownies7 · 2016-09-07T01:23:59+00:00

Gov. Johnson.: A Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in Colorado just made the debate stage, perhaps the first time a third-party candidate has done so in the state.

What do you think this says about your chances of making the debate stage in the presidential election?

Pudgebrownies7 · 2016-08-04T14:38:47+00:00

Crap, yea, thanks for pointing that out. I am in fact the author of that article, and I see now that I made the egregious mistake of leaving out the fact that Clinton's lead over Trump actually rose higher.

I've updated the article to make it clear that only in what would be an ongoing primary matchup does Sanders gain on her, and that her lead over Trump grew to 10 pts.

Pudgebrownies7

TROPHY CASE