February 7, 2019:
I realized for the first time how much journalism has changed since my childhood, and even young adulthood, when my daughter moved to Brooklyn about 10 years ago, with a fresh English degree from her honors college, and got to write a story, a blog really, for the prestigious New York Times. It was a features about the people who hand out water during the NY Marathon--slice of life thing. It felt like a breakthrough, but it wasn't. She didn't get paid, just the honor of having her name associated with the NYT. It was a theme for her life there: two unpaid internships at publishers that forced her to get jobs, in the meantime, at coffee houses, perfumeries, and bookstores to pay her rent. I know how this industry, in its moment of crises, has burned through a mess of millennials, and NYT may have actually been better than most.
We know the causes: CNN and the 24-hour news-cycle. Internet news. A thousand news start ups challenging the old gray guard, in print and on TV. Internet ads, the destabilizing effect of rescinding the Fairness Doctrine on Network TV, allowing for the rise of Fox News, and yes, MSNBC, so that journalists feel like they no longer need to feel objective or fact driven. Opinion has become news; we hardly get anything else these days. I waste so much energy trying to find good pieces out there, and they sure are lacking, even with all these young, Ivy-league and super-educated minds going to waste out there.
So, I've had it. I'm starting a list. Of un-newsworthy headlines. Or undignified op-eds. Unlike my music lyric list "Words for Food" with all my favorite and inspiring words in music, this list will be one intended to make collective blood boil. I know the millennials, probably deciding their words aren't valued anyway, have a hand in this--it's their language and slang/obscenities half the time. I'm really getting tired of seeing swear words in headlines--how are you supposed to take a newspaper seriously when its editorial staff doesn't? I think I'll make some system where I try to highlight the most egregious, overwrought, non-objective words in the headline, to emphasize what I'm seeing. I'm sure I could fill up a whole page, just today, with little effort. I don't know whether to just let them work their own magic or annotate.
Well, as it goes, I suppose. Hopefully someone will be embarrassed enough to stop. Here's the inaugural headline:
Feb 7, 2019-
--CNN:
"O.J. Simpson's advice to Roger Stone: 'Man up' and 'stop crying'"
"Nancy Pelosi just threw some serious shade at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 'Green New Deal'" Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Yes, it's an opinion piece, but feels more like sorority party gossip, and not even original in its wording.
--Huffpost:
"Jeff Bezos Says National Enquirer Exec Threatened To Publish ‘Dick Pick’"Carla Herreria
This seems to sum up everything that's wrong with journalism--isn't there a more dignified way? There was another headline that said "Bezos Exposes Pecker." Yeah, that was a clever thing that couldn't be resisted, wasn't it?
--Slate:
"Everyone Should Wear Nametags. All the time" Shannon Palus
Her other headline was even more demanding, telling us for some reason what a menstrual emoji should look like, and why the one she saw just wasn't good enough. I can't be the only person who thinks these attempts at cutesy journalism just sound like the demands of a brat in the throes of the terrible twos. Lord, am I tired of these, and bet I should be able to list one daily from Slate or Huffpost. Again the wording is rarely original, often starting with the phrase "Why you should.."
--USA Today:
Why is this a story?
All right, I found a bunch more but I can't stand looking at them any more. Will revisit as needed.
******************************
--Here's one from Fox, Feb 18, 2019:
"Kamala Harris gives awkward response when asked about Jussie Smollett claims"
******************************
--Here's one from Fox, Feb 18, 2019:
"Kamala Harris gives awkward response when asked about Jussie Smollett claims"
Again, why is this necessary to report? Hmm. Both are black, that's about it. I didn't even bother to read the article.
Ok, I just peeked at it, to be fair if I was going to be critical. So her "awkward answer " (asking her to walk back a tweet supporting Smollett) was comprised of a speculation that she was looking around for staff, implying she doesn't write her own tweets. Her answer was perfectly reasonable, saying she should wait until all evidence unfolds, but then the text gratuitously threw a bunch of "ums" in her direct quote to make her sound either unsure or insincere. Did I just imagine that when I was younger, the press itself made some sort of effort to demonstrate that anyone guilty of a crime, or the victim, was treated objectively until the evidence was in? And remember those fine old days when a minor's name wasn't dragged through press mud to protect them?
Huffpost, again:
Roger Stone Attacks Judge Presiding Over His Case In Bizarre Instagram Post
Ok, I just peeked at it, to be fair if I was going to be critical. So her "awkward answer " (asking her to walk back a tweet supporting Smollett) was comprised of a speculation that she was looking around for staff, implying she doesn't write her own tweets. Her answer was perfectly reasonable, saying she should wait until all evidence unfolds, but then the text gratuitously threw a bunch of "ums" in her direct quote to make her sound either unsure or insincere. Did I just imagine that when I was younger, the press itself made some sort of effort to demonstrate that anyone guilty of a crime, or the victim, was treated objectively until the evidence was in? And remember those fine old days when a minor's name wasn't dragged through press mud to protect them?
Huffpost, again:
Roger Stone Attacks Judge Presiding Over His Case In Bizarre Instagram Post
If anyone deserves some tit for tat (IMHO), it's Roger Stone. But don't become the enemy. How about letting the public read the details for themselves and letting us judge? (In fact, they are truly bizarre details, implying Mueller hand picked this judge, and some razzle-dazzle about Hillary Clinton and Benghazi. BUT, it's these kinds of headlines that make me think journalists really are elitists who think we don't know how to analyze. Maybe if y'all didn't try to do the hard work for us, the nation's readers might actually read? I almost didn't read this because of the headline, but changed my mind, thinking of this thread, and to see if the histrionics matched the details. They almost did. I think that comment about the circle with the X --meant to read as a crosshairs to signal the Trump wackos -- is way over the line of objective journalism. Maybe it's even true, but it makes the writer look paranoid to Joe middle America. Who is the intended audience here?
NBC News, April 27, 2019:
White House celebrates Melania Trump's birthday with bizarre photo
NBC News, April 27, 2019:
White House celebrates Melania Trump's birthday with bizarre photo
The photo is a strange one, of course, as many photos with Melania are these days. But one of those 30+ photographers shown in the picture must've got a more ordinary one. Did the White House choose this one. One thing, using bizarre in the headlines is definitely a trend.
Washington Post, May 16, 2019:
Kushner skirts GOP senators’ key questions on his immigration plan
This one maybe isn't as bad as usual, but it does have a bit of snark-what might be a more objective word/phrase? leaves unanswered, perhaps. I know it's the truth, more or less, but why put the 40% off
Jun 19:
Ok, so I haven't been very diligent with this post, mostly because I am truly having a hard time finding any hard news stories that make my point AND don't leach into an opinion piece. I mean, look at any news feed, any day--more than half if not more is just opinion pieces reworked into news. Either there is much less hard news than there used to be or newspapers/news sources just aren't doing their jobs. So I might have to just resort to identifying the worst sort of opinion pieces that insult my intelligence and verges on propaganda, attempts to unfairly sway. From today's Huffpost is a case in point:
Huffpost, June 19, 2019:
Democrats Slam Joe Biden Over Comments Invoking Segregationist Senators
Washington Post, May 16, 2019:
Kushner skirts GOP senators’ key questions on his immigration plan
This one maybe isn't as bad as usual, but it does have a bit of snark-what might be a more objective word/phrase? leaves unanswered, perhaps. I know it's the truth, more or less, but why put the 40% off
Jun 19:
Ok, so I haven't been very diligent with this post, mostly because I am truly having a hard time finding any hard news stories that make my point AND don't leach into an opinion piece. I mean, look at any news feed, any day--more than half if not more is just opinion pieces reworked into news. Either there is much less hard news than there used to be or newspapers/news sources just aren't doing their jobs. So I might have to just resort to identifying the worst sort of opinion pieces that insult my intelligence and verges on propaganda, attempts to unfairly sway. From today's Huffpost is a case in point:
Huffpost, June 19, 2019:
Democrats Slam Joe Biden Over Comments Invoking Segregationist Senators
This headline really tees me off. It is labeled "Politics" rather than news, but still, if it was a lawyer in court, it would be accused of leading the witness. I almost didn't do the red highlights until I really looked at what was going on here and dissected it. Out of Touch is the mantra. This is aimed at a particular audience, not all voters in the US. It's aimed at the left of center readers who are trying to make up their minds about which Dem to vote for in the primary. It has been quite obvious that Huffpost has been gunning for Grandpa Joe for some time. Here's a few more of their recent stories on him:
Elizabeth Warren Sees Girls As Future Leaders. What About Joe Biden?
Will Joe Biden Ever Learn To Stop Joking? | HuffPost
Will Joe Biden Ever Learn To Stop Joking? | HuffPost
That last is all about the seemingly left attempt to put Biden in a barn with the likes of H. Weinstein
Lots of left leaning news sources have run stories about age in politics, (somehow often not pointing out Warren's age, isn't that interesting? She's not an old white man.)
Anyway, if you actually read the text instead of just skimming the headline you'll see the disconnect. Biden is waxing nostalgic about the day when Congress actually worked together, cooperated, and he was using the segregationists as a case in point. He wasn't saying he agreed with their segregationist viewpoints, for god's sake; in fact, he was pointing out how they scared him and belittled him. And yet there was a level of professionalism and civility in Congress then that eludes it now. Now if Corey Booker et al. want to intentionally ignore Biden's seemingly heartfelt point for some stupid political gain--with millennials, the gullible, well, report that. But to lay it all on Joe as this headline in this deceptive--yes, I said deceptive! way is all on Huffpost. There is a full ton of this kind of stuff out there these days--no wonder everyone buys into this fake news mantra. Disrespect.
Yahoo News, June 23, 2019:
Trump warns he’s not ‘prepared to lose’ reelection
Yahoo News, June 23, 2019:
Trump warns he’s not ‘prepared to lose’ reelection
Now, I already read this story through another news outlet, one that extensively quoted Trump and gave the surrounding context, which did not in any way make it sound ominous the way this headlines seems. This sounds like he implies he will act on some unscrupulous, undemocratic behavior like a coup to retain power. The other was in response to some reporter asking what he would do if he lost, and in typical puffed up fashion, he answered that he wasn't going to lose..there was no reason to think he would lose..he's not prepared to lose. That word warns is really uncalled for, and gives heat to his fake news mantra. You can see how that changes with context-- it's not like he was making some finger-waving boiler of a speech warning he would refuse to relinquish power. Let's keep our heads people. Even when he implies he'd like to do a third term, you know that's (probably)just part of his fantasy that he's popular. At least I hope so.
Yahoo News, Sept. 22, 2019: (Also labeled POLITICS)
Yahoo News, Sept. 22, 2019: (Also labeled POLITICS)
Intelligence whistleblowers face a dangerous path to Congress
This is not so bad in the headline, although I might have highlighted the somewhat controversial word "dangerous". No, it's more the first paragraph that turned me sour here:
"WASHINGTON — When House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., issued a rare subpoena to acting spy chief Joseph Maguire, commanding him to share with Congress an “urgent” and “credible” disclosure reportedly relating to the president, it kicked off a heated debate across different government agencies and Capitol Hill over how to handle the anonymous complaint.
One of the most perplexing questions for outsiders is if the complaint was so urgent, why didn’t the whistleblower go straight to Congress, bypassing the jurisdictional battle between overseers?"
I don't quite see, having already read the backstory from several sides on this issue, how the word commanded is warranted here. Two thoughts: the writer is a conservative and wants to make Adam Schiff sound imperious, or the poor thing is a liberal wanting to reach in and grab the recipient of his subpoena (and any interested parties), pressing down the weight of his position that might not be taken seriously. Either way, from a the point of view of old journalistic standards, the word commanded in this context looks ridiculous and biased. This is one of the kind of pieces that I'm getting so tired of--not exactly basic, fact presenting news, but also not really an op-ed article, the kind that just reek of spin and analysis that makes both sides weary.
And, I highlighted the entire question in red because it is the pinhead on which this whole article spins. When you read more, it probably seems somewhat clear that the writer is leaning lib/Dem and thinks she is addressing folks who are already putting up walls against believing the whistleblowers' story. She's going to tell you logically why a whistleblower cannot go straight to Congress. But here's the problem--how many readers, seeing that 2nd line, just stop there (as I almost did, but for possibly different reasons), and then go on to use the "bypass of Congress", which they may have not thought of before reading this, unfortunately, as an argument to support their anti-whistleblower views at their next social/social media function?
This is why I am so damned tired of , and lose respect for, overly clever journalists/journalism.
April 14: Saw this today, at the height of the U.S. Covid crises:
Business Insider, via Yahoo News: April 14-
All But Three People Who Died from COVID-19 in a Major US City Were Black
So in the copy, the "City" had only three "white" people die of Covid. It then went on to cherry pick statistics from St. Louis County--which any St. Louisan could tell you is NOT the same as the City of St. Louis. The thing is, by the 80s, St. Louis, much like its friend across the river, East St. Louis, is a majority black city. The County, on the other hand, is majority white--you know, the old white flight to the suburbs--the County is the suburbs, and especially West County which is where my doctor's wife sister lived before she died, and her husband still lives. I could not afford his neighborhood, and the majority of West County is like that, with all the fancy malls, trendy cafes and high end restaurants are. Chesterfield, for example. Frontenac and Town and Country, which even by it's name you can tell is suburban. There are a few high end neighborhoods that are white and wealthy--Ladue and Clayton (I think Clayton counts as city?) and some of the downtownish Streets near Forest Park that have the old French names like Soulard. But most of St. Louis City is blighted, full of crumbling brick Victorian era identical two-flats that often have two or more on every block with boarded-up windows. Chain link fences, junk yard dogs. At least that's the way I remember it, with chicken, bar-B-Q and chop suey store fronts in need of a new coat of paint over the 40 layers already there. I never had the desire to be a city girl growing up, with sad, gray, dilapidated St. Louis as my only experience. Some neighborhoods today are gentrifying slowly, however, if you want to consider that displacement a good thing.
So, the cherry-picked stats made it look like the City was majority white, if you weren't paying attention to the wording. The white population is 65.5% in the county, but only 46% in the city (it surprises me it's that high, but must be the newly gentrifying Central West End).
Anyway, I know the writers were trying to do-good, but they stretched the truth, and anyone in that area of the country would feel that and now be dismissive of any info from that source. Good job, do-gooders: the ends justify the means, no? That's the part of the country that can't be alienated.
Apr 15: I see a well-respected paper calling out these stories that are fueling racist interpretations of Covid victims. Hmm, I feel prescient, and not affiliated with anyone's b.s.
April 22, 2020: I think I've discovered the New Fox News--check out this headline that flies in the face of all other polls, which show Biden with a pretty strong lead, including in some of these swing states. To be fair, A St. Pete poll shows Biden/trump in a tie.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-poll-swing-states-2020-election-coronavirus-response-a9478776.html
Ok, I'l admit this is not a screaming headline. (Others of theirs are, however). It is just how it opposed everything else I've been reading over the last few weeks, which has been showing a fairly steady trend of Biden rising, Trump sinking, and especially concerning his handling of the corona crisis. But enough of The Independent's stuff has been off trend that I decided it was time to check out its history and present day owners--well, it started as a Tabloid. And now is own by Russians--fancy that.
Not enough for you, my skeptical friend? Let's look at some of their other recent headlines, cherry-picked by hand, by moi:
This is the headline that changes after you click on it, from
Claims of "Fake News" Descend into Chaos at Bizarre Briefing as CDC Chief Admits Quotes Were Accurate
to (once you click on the story), because if that headline wasn't confusing enough, the second was almost as bad:
Trump calls on CDC Director to Denounce "Fake News" --who Admits Paper's Quotes are Accurate
I suppose they were not satisfied with the first? Don't get why they didn't take it down, then...
Entire Police Force "Resigns" After Officers Suspended For Violence
Yeah, I added the caps, because for some reason this paper disdains headline traditions. If I hadn't been seeing these stories all day, I would have no idea what was going on in these headlines. I can't even tell if it's anti Trump or not, but it's definitely up to something. The plain story of the "Fake News"story, that I luckily heard first on NPR, is that a head CDC guy said he was sidelined for telling news Trump didn't want to hear: that Covid will be back in the winter--(duh). But exactly who is this set of headlines--one so bad they needed to double down in badness--who is it trying to appeal to?
The Police Force story smacks of typical British yellow tabloidism--it's the story of the 57 "band of brothers" who quit a special squad (not the entire police force!) in protest of two in their ranks getting suspended for knocking down and sending to hospital a 75 year old man. That story was spun in the American press too, because I read an ancillary story that quoted one of the men who "resigned"-(let's call it what it really was--they asked to be taken off the special unit; they didn't quit the NYC police force), anyway the former special units member asked to be taken off because the policeman's union wasn't going to support them. So this story gets a double spin, first making the resigners look even worse than they did than when they all walked past a bleeding, unconscious man without doing anything--for "quitting". Then the British version implies the entire NYC police force quit--what a sensational , apocalyptic story that is! Next, Protest Zombies come back to life! Again, when you click on this click-bait headline, the second is slightly more reasonable, detailing "an" entire police force--hmm. But repeats the sensational "quitting in protest" from the American press, which now seems questionable.
This paper quite obviously not trying to actually give the public any information. And I rest my case for the Independent--now a clearly, used -up, dirty dish rag. ("Taps" will now play...)
Theput-down comment occurred after Trump crowed spoke in a Rose Garden statement about a better-than-expected 13.3% unemployment figure for the nation in May. The president had
shockingly claimed that it was a “great day” for George Floyd — the Black man a white police officer killed last month in Minneapolis — because he would be pleased “looking down” at the jobs stats.ccurate
revision--
said, “Equal justice under the law must mean that every American receives equal treatment in every encounter with law enforcement regardless of race, color, gender or creed. They have to receive fair treatment from law enforcement. They have to receive it.”
“We all saw what happened last week. We can’t let that happen. Hopefully George is looking down and saying this is a great thing that’s happening for our country. (It’s) a great day for him. It’s a great day for everybody. This is a great, great day in terms of equality,” Trump continued.
So, the cherry-picked stats made it look like the City was majority white, if you weren't paying attention to the wording. The white population is 65.5% in the county, but only 46% in the city (it surprises me it's that high, but must be the newly gentrifying Central West End).
Anyway, I know the writers were trying to do-good, but they stretched the truth, and anyone in that area of the country would feel that and now be dismissive of any info from that source. Good job, do-gooders: the ends justify the means, no? That's the part of the country that can't be alienated.
Apr 15: I see a well-respected paper calling out these stories that are fueling racist interpretations of Covid victims. Hmm, I feel prescient, and not affiliated with anyone's b.s.
April 22, 2020: I think I've discovered the New Fox News--check out this headline that flies in the face of all other polls, which show Biden with a pretty strong lead, including in some of these swing states. To be fair, A St. Pete poll shows Biden/trump in a tie.
Trump Has Narrow Lead in Key Swing States Despite Voters' Frustrations with Coronavirus Response
President has one-point lead in six crucial states even as voters there worry about opening the country too quickly
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-poll-swing-states-2020-election-coronavirus-response-a9478776.html
Ok, I'l admit this is not a screaming headline. (Others of theirs are, however). It is just how it opposed everything else I've been reading over the last few weeks, which has been showing a fairly steady trend of Biden rising, Trump sinking, and especially concerning his handling of the corona crisis. But enough of The Independent's stuff has been off trend that I decided it was time to check out its history and present day owners--well, it started as a Tabloid. And now is own by Russians--fancy that.
Not enough for you, my skeptical friend? Let's look at some of their other recent headlines, cherry-picked by hand, by moi:
This is the headline that changes after you click on it, from
Claims of "Fake News" Descend into Chaos at Bizarre Briefing as CDC Chief Admits Quotes Were Accurate
to (once you click on the story), because if that headline wasn't confusing enough, the second was almost as bad:
Trump calls on CDC Director to Denounce "Fake News" --who Admits Paper's Quotes are Accurate
I suppose they were not satisfied with the first? Don't get why they didn't take it down, then...
Entire Police Force "Resigns" After Officers Suspended For Violence
Yeah, I added the caps, because for some reason this paper disdains headline traditions. If I hadn't been seeing these stories all day, I would have no idea what was going on in these headlines. I can't even tell if it's anti Trump or not, but it's definitely up to something. The plain story of the "Fake News"story, that I luckily heard first on NPR, is that a head CDC guy said he was sidelined for telling news Trump didn't want to hear: that Covid will be back in the winter--(duh). But exactly who is this set of headlines--one so bad they needed to double down in badness--who is it trying to appeal to?
The Police Force story smacks of typical British yellow tabloidism--it's the story of the 57 "band of brothers" who quit a special squad (not the entire police force!) in protest of two in their ranks getting suspended for knocking down and sending to hospital a 75 year old man. That story was spun in the American press too, because I read an ancillary story that quoted one of the men who "resigned"-(let's call it what it really was--they asked to be taken off the special unit; they didn't quit the NYC police force), anyway the former special units member asked to be taken off because the policeman's union wasn't going to support them. So this story gets a double spin, first making the resigners look even worse than they did than when they all walked past a bleeding, unconscious man without doing anything--for "quitting". Then the British version implies the entire NYC police force quit--what a sensational , apocalyptic story that is! Next, Protest Zombies come back to life! Again, when you click on this click-bait headline, the second is slightly more reasonable, detailing "an" entire police force--hmm. But repeats the sensational "quitting in protest" from the American press, which now seems questionable.
This paper quite obviously not trying to actually give the public any information. And I rest my case for the Independent--now a clearly, used -up, dirty dish rag. ("Taps" will now play...)
And, just to add to this, it just seems like us sick, scared, and quarantined people are being played by a certain political party this past week. First of all, there was this rash --yes, that's the best word for it, Rash. A Rash of small but widely publicized "political protests", particularly targeting a few swing states, with participants who are Covid deniers who go to church during lockdowns, and others who reportedly carry guns--who does this sound like? This immediately followed the next day by Republican governors saying they were going to begin opening their states next week---doesn't this all sound like some horrible plan gone awry that they thought they were going to shove down our throats, like the bosses they are? And thank the lord, the public dug in--and I'm particularly proud of people in my field, who just said--don't think so, wouldn't be prudent--and if schoolkids are staying home, their parents have to think in ten directions about how this is going to work, this partial birth going back. Do these people ever actually think, or do they just scheme?
June 6, 2020:
Trump Demeans Female Black Reporter As She Challenges Him On Black Unemployment
Huffpost: by Mary Papenfuss
This story occurs at the end of the first week of the George Floyd protests. I am going to play devil's advocate here, because I really am in agreement about Trump with both Ms. Papenfuss and Ms. Alcindor, the subject of the story. I just don't see why the Huffpost feels the need to inflate plain English. The words/facts/speeches should speak for themselves:
The put-down occurred after Trump crowed in a Rose Garden statement about a better-than-expected 13.3% unemployment figure for the nation in May. The president shockingly claimed that it was a “great day” for George Floyd — the Black man a white police officer killed last month in Minneapolis — because he would be pleased “looking down” at the jobs stats.
Like I implied, Trump's words and behavior are definitely worthy of the news' focus, but in the old days a true journalist would refrain from the intentionally emotive language, for the sake of objectivity. It feeds into the right's argument that certain journalists/media platforms are subjective. This article was labeled Politics, but not Opinion, which it clearly is. I don't really get this new designation of Politics, and I suspect other readers are confused too--some sort of blurry line between facts and opinion.
I used to teach my students the art of letting words and ideas speak for themselves rather than diluting them with hyperbolic adjectives and so forth. It carries more weight, for example to say, "He was a strong man" which sounds like a quiet observation, than "He was an extremely, very strong, man", which sounds like the writer is working too hard to impress, and smacks of, as Hamlet wittily observed, one who "doth protest too much." To fix, and not blow one's credibility as an objective watcher, it would have been better to say, losing the "air quotes" , my would-be corrections in red:
June 6, 2020:
Trump Demeans Female Black Reporter As She Challenges Him On Black Unemployment
Huffpost: by Mary Papenfuss
This story occurs at the end of the first week of the George Floyd protests. I am going to play devil's advocate here, because I really am in agreement about Trump with both Ms. Papenfuss and Ms. Alcindor, the subject of the story. I just don't see why the Huffpost feels the need to inflate plain English. The words/facts/speeches should speak for themselves:
The put-down occurred after Trump crowed in a Rose Garden statement about a better-than-expected 13.3% unemployment figure for the nation in May. The president shockingly claimed that it was a “great day” for George Floyd — the Black man a white police officer killed last month in Minneapolis — because he would be pleased “looking down” at the jobs stats.
Like I implied, Trump's words and behavior are definitely worthy of the news' focus, but in the old days a true journalist would refrain from the intentionally emotive language, for the sake of objectivity. It feeds into the right's argument that certain journalists/media platforms are subjective. This article was labeled Politics, but not Opinion, which it clearly is. I don't really get this new designation of Politics, and I suspect other readers are confused too--some sort of blurry line between facts and opinion.
I used to teach my students the art of letting words and ideas speak for themselves rather than diluting them with hyperbolic adjectives and so forth. It carries more weight, for example to say, "He was a strong man" which sounds like a quiet observation, than "He was an extremely, very strong, man", which sounds like the writer is working too hard to impress, and smacks of, as Hamlet wittily observed, one who "doth protest too much." To fix, and not blow one's credibility as an objective watcher, it would have been better to say, losing the "air quotes" , my would-be corrections in red:
The
revision--
said, “Equal justice under the law must mean that every American receives equal treatment in every encounter with law enforcement regardless of race, color, gender or creed. They have to receive fair treatment from law enforcement. They have to receive it.”
“We all saw what happened last week. We can’t let that happen. Hopefully George is looking down and saying this is a great thing that’s happening for our country. (It’s) a great day for him. It’s a great day for everybody. This is a great, great day in terms of equality,” Trump continued.
“It’s what our Constitution requires and it’s what our country is all about,” he concluded.-
--because these are the actual words he said. Of course, though, the actual words by themselves don't support the article's claim that George would be happy about job's numbers. I took out that partial "ironic air quotes" (cheap writing) because they add opinion to the facts, and I would like to note that I had to dig through several stories on this speech before I found one, on CNN, which has the actual speech words with a smattering of frame, much less and more objective than the Huffpost article. Huffpost , although it had a clip of the speech, cut it off at the strategic moment where they were interpreting the truth. You can definitely see the difference, and one must suspect that the left simply feels any mention of Floyd's name should be off limits to Trump, which seems a bit over the top to me--he is, after all, as much as we'd like to disavow him, an American, with a horse in this race. The connection to the unemployment numbers is much less direct than the Huffpost writer claims, even though it is part of the same speech. Noted.
--because these are the actual words he said. Of course, though, the actual words by themselves don't support the article's claim that George would be happy about job's numbers. I took out that partial "ironic air quotes" (cheap writing) because they add opinion to the facts, and I would like to note that I had to dig through several stories on this speech before I found one, on CNN, which has the actual speech words with a smattering of frame, much less and more objective than the Huffpost article. Huffpost , although it had a clip of the speech, cut it off at the strategic moment where they were interpreting the truth. You can definitely see the difference, and one must suspect that the left simply feels any mention of Floyd's name should be off limits to Trump, which seems a bit over the top to me--he is, after all, as much as we'd like to disavow him, an American, with a horse in this race. The connection to the unemployment numbers is much less direct than the Huffpost writer claims, even though it is part of the same speech. Noted.
Now onto the central part of the article, about the speech being about job numbers, where Ms. Alcindor , who works for PBS, rightly asked Trump to recognize white unemployment dropping more than black unemployment, which actually rose 1%. A true portrayal of the moment shows Trump dismissing the question with a palm-forward, single wave of his hand, then hurriedly gathering his speech materials, saying, "You're something", as Pence initiates a round of applause for the president.
No need to embellish with the words "shushing" and "angrily". The American public continues to receive disservice from the manipulative press on both sides. Why do we all have to work so hard to find the truth? And I can't unring the bell of seeing Trump invoking Floyd's name with these more harsh interpretations. The emotional anger at him has already been initiated, and I am now also angry at Ms. Papenfuss as well for trying to play me in a way that was unnecessary. I would have been disgusted by the original, and you have now put me in harm's way of the right-leaning people I will encounter who see your spin. I hope it's just that the last week's events have made you feel things that you could't help bleeding through, but you MUST do better.
This is an interesting article on the Poynter Institute, a rather mysterious enterprise in my town, that is a non-profit, that bills itself as an arbiter of Journalism Ethics, and supporter of new, black and female journalists. This article may make you question their mission:
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/xg8ygd/its-about-ethics-in-journalism?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=vf&utm_mailing=VF_HivePS_062020&utm_medium=email&bxid=5ee00d2c70909e64ab7b6823&cndid=61370671&hasha=0400cea7ffd5c0af9db985c0d1599e69&hashb=fad8e4a98fba8f42cb020e7bee06c72e41a3d5a8&hashc=a2e9aaf654afbd2cb5f830a27793a67b932eae233cfa91c638ddd747e53a2261&esrc=hivenlpg&utm_campaign=VF_HivePS_062020&utm_term=VYF_Hive
