Balance, Trump and Lies

Here in NY Times

Confronted by this, the basic questions for the press have been: If covering Trump is also providing free advertising — more than $2 billion worth — should he be covered less or not at all? If Trump is outside the frame of conventional political discourse, how far outside the frame of conventional coverage does the media have to move? And if his evident personal problems render him unfit for the presidency, is it more important to ensure by any means that he is not elected or to be critical of Hillary Clinton where justified?

In other words, is any equivalence of treatment of the candidates “false” because they are not compatible, any more than, say, harassment and murder are compatible crimes?

Jay Roeen on NYT, Twitter and opinion

Yesterday the New York Times editor for standards sent out a memo warning all newsroom staff to be careful about ever expressing an opinion about the election. In its way it is an extraordinary document, dictating the terms of self-censorship for Times journalists.
Among the claims it makes: You may think your Facebook page is your space, but you're wrong. ("Everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times.") Even if your work at the Times has nothing to do with political coverage you carry the political responsibility to remain publicly neutral. And, most extraordinary to me, even your sharing and linking actions on social media are danger zones. Here's the memo:
http://www.nytimes.com/…/liz-spayd-new-york-times-public-ed…
Listen to what it says: "If you are linking to other sources, aim to reflect a diverse collection of viewpoints. Sharing a range of news, opinions or satire from others is usually fine. But consistently linking only to one side of a debate can leave the impression that you, too, are taking sides."