Comments on: I Hate You Reuters

By: mugu

mugu — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 07:32:44 +0000

i love this steooooooooooooooooooo

By: Timothy

Timothy — Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:46:51 +0000

Yes, they are definitely of suspicious parentage.

By: flb

flb — Tue, 01 Jun 2004 20:13:43 +0000

i still like calling people “enemy non-combatants”. or, “mercenaries.” but then again, i took this class on the law of armed conflict, and now i love me some geneva convention terminology. also, i love “scare” quotes.

anyway, yes. language that colors the whole mood of a story that’s got nuttin’ to do with the point is bad journalism. bastards.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:03:41 +0000

Point taken. The thing I’m getting sickest of is the whole “militant” thing. They’re not militants, you fucking jackasses, they’re terrorists. Okay, they might be both militants and terrorists, but the former doesn’t have nearly a negative enough connotation.

By: WWB

WWB — Tue, 01 Jun 2004 08:01:07 +0000

Speaking of favorable coverage of terrorists, there’s also this. But note the scare quotes in the subhead — apparently the Post isn’t even sure if they’re terrorists, either.

By: WWB

WWB — Tue, 01 Jun 2004 07:48:19 +0000

I may not like what’s in the second sentence, and the writer’s overall impression may be arguable, but I don’t think its inaccurate. Abu Ghraib and insurgent violence (Don’t they mean “terrorism”? Wait, I forgot. Reuters thinks they might be freedom fighters.) indeed pose a problem for Bush’s reelection.

But the first sentence is all wrong. Yes it may be a fact, but it’s also a particularly egregious case of framing the story to fit a bias. Where is the sentence that says “Kerry, who served in Vietnam only after failing to avoid service, and later joined an anti-war veterans group that reportedly sought the assassination of several U.S. senators, returned to Boston that evening.” It needn’t be that harsh, of course. But if a skeptical eye is to be turned on one candidate, it should be for both.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Mon, 31 May 2004 20:48:26 +0000

Wait, I didn’t read the damn sentence correctly, ignore the parenthetical above. Yes, the first example is a statement of fact. I’m literate, I swear it.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Mon, 31 May 2004 20:47:15 +0000

The first sentence is definitely a statement of fact (well, except maybe the “hero” business about Kerry, but I’ll give it to him, as if I was the arbiter of such things to begin with). The point is that it’s completely irrelevant. I think the second one, however, is sort of up for debate.

By: flb

flb — Mon, 31 May 2004 18:36:12 +0000

while those two sentences are certainly intended to color the item, they’re actually not mere opinions. bush did avoid combat, he did serve (i suppose this is up for grabs, wink wink) as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, he does call himself a wartime president, and John Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran. Iraq has become a political liability (see any number of polls out showing the President slipping, particularly on Iraq), the June 30 handover is approaching, but the news of it has been overshadowed by what the NYT is calling an unraveling truce that led to two more American GIs dying today, and the scandal over abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

i know, taken together, they color the article, and they may not ‘belong’ in the piece, but let’s just be clear about what an ‘opinion’ is.

jesus i bore myself.