"Picture in your mind a political debate between acquaintances, perhaps on social media, or in meatspace.
You make your point, your opponent makes his.
Demands for evidence are made.
Perhaps an article on CNN, or a reference to a study on The Atlantic.
The onus is on you to prove that the item is now incorrect.
Yet you cannot do so, for the citations within it are true, even though the spin has rendered it into something it really is not.
How do you articulate that?
Consider this CNN headline: Children found in New Mexico compound were training for school shootings, prosecutors say.
What is wrong with it?
The headline is true.
The children were indeed in a compound in New Mexico, and were indeed training to commit school shootings.
Ah, but it omits that this was linked to Islamic terror.
Now the article itself sort-of admits this in the last section of the article.
Hogrefe said FBI analysts told him the suspects appeared to be “extremist of the Muslim belief.”
Compare this to how the same event is reported on Fox News: Investigators raided New Mexico compound on tip from terror-tied New York City imam, cleric claims.
Note the difference in spin.
One emphasizes ‘school shootings’ and the other ‘terror-tied’ and ‘imam’.
This is how the tone of a thing is subtly changed, depending on the journalist’s preferred viewpoint..."
Read all.
No comments:
Post a Comment