News is supposed to tell you what happened not how to feel about it. When you notice an article is using a lot of emotionally charged language, that’s a good sign to check the facts (if there are any)
Realistically, any piece of information is reported from a point of view. It is published following an editorial line, tinted by an opinon or an alter motive. This is why you should always consider the source of the information and if you really need to know, crosscheck with multiple independant sources.
It kind of sounds like you’re mistrusting of journalist in general. I don’t think journalists are the problem though, columnists maybe, and publishers definitely. There is the big difference between calling a LGBT bookreading a hellscape and calling a war zone a hellscape. Some news tells you what is; others chew it, digest it, and put sprinkles on the soft serve for you.
I don’t distrust journalists. I think it’s always important to consider who I am reading or hearing from, to take this fact into consideration as well in order to make my judgement. There are as many ways to report a fact as there are hands to write about it, the choice of words has an influence, as you pointed out with your example. We can trust reputable sources with more confidence, but non the less, I don’t think it’s ever as simple as reporting “what is”. E.g: “a cat got run over by a car” vs “a man killed a cat with his car” just reporting a fact, very different feeling.
Cool, same book, same page. I’ve just seen a lot of journalists get demonized because of the misinformation surge and that sucks because we need more of them more than ever.
We desperatly need more good journalists and more truly independent media. In this day in age we expect a lot for free, but I am glad to pay for newspaper subscription and for public radio/tv.
You might as well only read news wires like Reuters and AP, then.
Context matters, emotions matter, selective reporting is rampant, and all journalism writes to their audience. It’s usually more accurate to read articles from both sides of an issue and assume that both are wrong, with the truth often somewhere in the middle. On a geopolitical scale, it’s also good to assume rational actors (because, far more often than not, they are rational even if you don’t have the context that rationalizes an action).
News is supposed to tell you what happened not how to feel about it. When you notice an article is using a lot of emotionally charged language, that’s a good sign to check the facts (if there are any)
Realistically, any piece of information is reported from a point of view. It is published following an editorial line, tinted by an opinon or an alter motive. This is why you should always consider the source of the information and if you really need to know, crosscheck with multiple independant sources.
It kind of sounds like you’re mistrusting of journalist in general. I don’t think journalists are the problem though, columnists maybe, and publishers definitely. There is the big difference between calling a LGBT bookreading a hellscape and calling a war zone a hellscape. Some news tells you what is; others chew it, digest it, and put sprinkles on the soft serve for you.
I don’t distrust journalists. I think it’s always important to consider who I am reading or hearing from, to take this fact into consideration as well in order to make my judgement. There are as many ways to report a fact as there are hands to write about it, the choice of words has an influence, as you pointed out with your example. We can trust reputable sources with more confidence, but non the less, I don’t think it’s ever as simple as reporting “what is”. E.g: “a cat got run over by a car” vs “a man killed a cat with his car” just reporting a fact, very different feeling.
Cool, same book, same page. I’ve just seen a lot of journalists get demonized because of the misinformation surge and that sucks because we need more of them more than ever.
We desperatly need more good journalists and more truly independent media. In this day in age we expect a lot for free, but I am glad to pay for newspaper subscription and for public radio/tv.
You might as well only read news wires like Reuters and AP, then.
Context matters, emotions matter, selective reporting is rampant, and all journalism writes to their audience. It’s usually more accurate to read articles from both sides of an issue and assume that both are wrong, with the truth often somewhere in the middle. On a geopolitical scale, it’s also good to assume rational actors (because, far more often than not, they are rational even if you don’t have the context that rationalizes an action).
Or read anything and register how the language affects you compared to the substance of the piece.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
If an article has any emotional charge at all it’s automatically not factual
I can’t tell if you’re trying to lampoon my take or really believe that.