- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
For example, and I'm being a bit "devil's advocate" here because talking about "News" seems to mean something different to every person I talk to, let's just look at the current top news story on Facebook, which when I link to it, connects me to a news article written by an Associated Press journalist:
http://www.nola.com/national_politics/2018/06/110_confederate_monuments_remo.html
Now the headline of this news article is this
110 Confederate Monuments Removed Since 2015
Now when you read this article, the 2nd paragraphs is all the facts. The Who, What and Where:
1. Who.... a study done by the Southern Poverty Law Center
2. What.... 110 Confederate Monuments have been removed since 2015
3. Where....Nationwide
Everything else in this article is "why". Everything else starts bordering on "opinion" and not facts anymore. Let's analyze some of the lines if I was in court during a trial and someone tried to admit as facts against my client I would object too:
1. Third paragraph, last sentence.... "compared with the more than 1700 memorials to hail the Southern "lost cause"."
I would object to this as fact. I'm not sure EVERY confederate statue hails the "lost cause". Some might just be plain old memorials or battlefield sites that talk about the loss of life (both south and north). They kind of imply in paragraph 2 that this includes "schools, roads, etc. named for confederate generals or leaders". These are memorials to hail the South's "lost cause"? Really? Couldn't they just be to remember the past?
2. By the fourth paragraph, we are now quoting an "expert" from a person at the same place that did the "study". First, he says the removal of confederate monuments wasn't widely discussed prior to 2015 Dylan Roof shooting. This isn't fact. The confederate flag removal from across the South's state capitols has been going on for decades. The quoted "expert" says this event "signifies something monumental" and created an event "finally willing to confront the past".
This paragraph is completely opinion. There are no facts in paragraph 5 at all.
Now the author goes into the divisiveness of this issue by interviewing (and perhaps instigating the reader to feel angry against the other side) by picking a hard liner that supports Confederate symbolism and is putting up monuments on private property to spite the anti-confederate monument movement. Again, all opinion, all divisiveness, all one opinion (probably presented in a positive light) vs. another opinion (probably presented in a negative light).
Now I ask everyone here.... is this "fake news"? Even if we agree to the FACTS (which is just one study by the way), from paragraphs #4 to the end of this "news" article, are there any facts at all? Any "Who, What or Where"? Or is it only "Why"?
And how is this author spinning the "Why" by who he decided to interview as the "expert opinions" on each side of the debate?
Is this "News" or is this piece "Op Ed"?
I mean, we could study news articles ad nauseam and pick them apart but I think this news article exemplifies a LOT of what is wrong with our media right now. Journalist, in the quest for eyeballs and clicks, are creating division IN THE NEWS themselves. This isn't a news article about removing confederate statues. It's using a study to CREATE an op ed piece where the author can push divisiveness. This isn't Trump doing this, this is the news media and how they present "facts" (which are very limited).
Again, this was the LEAD STORY, TOP OF THE BOARD on Facebook today about 4PM, which is a common time for workers around the east coast to check in on facebook the end of the work day.
This does matter.
http://www.nola.com/national_politics/2018/06/110_confederate_monuments_remo.html
Now the headline of this news article is this
110 Confederate Monuments Removed Since 2015
Now when you read this article, the 2nd paragraphs is all the facts. The Who, What and Where:
1. Who.... a study done by the Southern Poverty Law Center
2. What.... 110 Confederate Monuments have been removed since 2015
3. Where....Nationwide
Everything else in this article is "why". Everything else starts bordering on "opinion" and not facts anymore. Let's analyze some of the lines if I was in court during a trial and someone tried to admit as facts against my client I would object too:
1. Third paragraph, last sentence.... "compared with the more than 1700 memorials to hail the Southern "lost cause"."
I would object to this as fact. I'm not sure EVERY confederate statue hails the "lost cause". Some might just be plain old memorials or battlefield sites that talk about the loss of life (both south and north). They kind of imply in paragraph 2 that this includes "schools, roads, etc. named for confederate generals or leaders". These are memorials to hail the South's "lost cause"? Really? Couldn't they just be to remember the past?
2. By the fourth paragraph, we are now quoting an "expert" from a person at the same place that did the "study". First, he says the removal of confederate monuments wasn't widely discussed prior to 2015 Dylan Roof shooting. This isn't fact. The confederate flag removal from across the South's state capitols has been going on for decades. The quoted "expert" says this event "signifies something monumental" and created an event "finally willing to confront the past".
This paragraph is completely opinion. There are no facts in paragraph 5 at all.
Now the author goes into the divisiveness of this issue by interviewing (and perhaps instigating the reader to feel angry against the other side) by picking a hard liner that supports Confederate symbolism and is putting up monuments on private property to spite the anti-confederate monument movement. Again, all opinion, all divisiveness, all one opinion (probably presented in a positive light) vs. another opinion (probably presented in a negative light).
Now I ask everyone here.... is this "fake news"? Even if we agree to the FACTS (which is just one study by the way), from paragraphs #4 to the end of this "news" article, are there any facts at all? Any "Who, What or Where"? Or is it only "Why"?
And how is this author spinning the "Why" by who he decided to interview as the "expert opinions" on each side of the debate?
Is this "News" or is this piece "Op Ed"?
I mean, we could study news articles ad nauseam and pick them apart but I think this news article exemplifies a LOT of what is wrong with our media right now. Journalist, in the quest for eyeballs and clicks, are creating division IN THE NEWS themselves. This isn't a news article about removing confederate statues. It's using a study to CREATE an op ed piece where the author can push divisiveness. This isn't Trump doing this, this is the news media and how they present "facts" (which are very limited).
Again, this was the LEAD STORY, TOP OF THE BOARD on Facebook today about 4PM, which is a common time for workers around the east coast to check in on facebook the end of the work day.
This does matter.