Wording, the part of the truth you tell, what other truths you tell before and after.
You watch or read any big event by two papers with different views, both will probably tell the same facts but the tone, the implications, and the interpretation of the facts will be completely different.
Example:
“A young boy takes justice to a CEO after he and his family were denied medical care by their insurance company”
*And now we cut to other news about people denied healthcare.
“A men struggling with mental illness after severe medical issues assassinated a fathers and loving husband who worked providing healthcare to American people”.
*And now we cut about news about serial killers.
I’ll look at each of your examples independently (note that all that follows is my own opinion, and should be interpreted as conjecture):
“A young boy takes justice to a CEO after he and his family were denied medical care by their insurance company” *And now we cut to other news about people denied healthcare.
“young boy”: This is opinion — what one person calls young may differ from another. Proper reporting, imo, would specify the exact age only, and cite where they know that age from. The emotionally charged language like “young”, and “boy” should be omitted.
“justice”: This is opinion — what one person calls justice may differ from another. It may even be considered verifiably false depending on one’s definition of justice.
“after he and his family were denied medical care by their insurance company”: If the reporting is only on an event that happened, this information that follows is irrelevant and only serves to emotionally charge one’s interpretation — it is not good faith journalism.
A men [sic] struggling with mental illness after severe medical issues assassinated a fathers [sic] and loving husband who worked providing healthcare to American people”.
“A [man]”: Whether someone is a “man” is a matter of opinion. I’m not aware of a hard definition. It’s especially not used with an exact definition in colloquial speech. It should be omitted and replaced with the age of the individual with a source citing how that age is known.
“struggling with mental illness”: If the reporting is only on the event that happened (ie the killing of the CEO), this information is unnecessary and only serves to emotionally charge the reporting.
“severe medical issues”: Severity is a matter of opinion. This is emotionally charged. It can be removed for the same reason as “struggling with mental illness”.
“assassinated”: This is pure conjecture and relies on a source — it may not be known to be an actual assassination (assuming that assassination is interpreted as a hired hit on someone).
“a fathers [sic] and loving husband who worked providing healthcare to American people”: Emotionally charged and can be removed if the reporting is specifically only on the event.
Both are, by definition [1], not journalism (regardless of the position they are taking), as they are mixing opinions with facts, and are attempting to interpret them, as was shown above.
They are the citation. They are the one reporting it as fact. I’m not saying to believe everything you read but they are the ones putting their reputation on the line. Opinion commentators can say whatever they want because it’s their opinion. Big difference.
They are the citation. They are the one reporting it as fact. I’m not saying to believe everything you read but they are the ones putting their reputation on the line. […]
I agree that it would make it statistically likely that their claims are accurate, but their reputation isn’t proof of their claim’s veracity [1].
When reading hard news from an outlet that actually hires journalists I consider that to be the source.
When reading opinion I definitely do a bit more digging, keeping an eye out for half truths. I wouldn’t consider this to be journalism
For clarity, do you mean that you don’t care if they cite their claims?
Hell, it doesn’t even need to be lies. You can paint whatever story you want with the truth.
I’m not sure I follow what you mean. Would you mind stating your point more explicitly?
Wording, the part of the truth you tell, what other truths you tell before and after.
You watch or read any big event by two papers with different views, both will probably tell the same facts but the tone, the implications, and the interpretation of the facts will be completely different.
Example:
“A young boy takes justice to a CEO after he and his family were denied medical care by their insurance company” *And now we cut to other news about people denied healthcare.
“A men struggling with mental illness after severe medical issues assassinated a fathers and loving husband who worked providing healthcare to American people”. *And now we cut about news about serial killers.
Far more eloquent than I ever could have put it beautiful job, thank you.
I’ll look at each of your examples independently (note that all that follows is my own opinion, and should be interpreted as conjecture):
Both are, by definition [1], not journalism (regardless of the position they are taking), as they are mixing opinions with facts, and are attempting to interpret them, as was shown above.
References
They are the citation. They are the one reporting it as fact. I’m not saying to believe everything you read but they are the ones putting their reputation on the line. Opinion commentators can say whatever they want because it’s their opinion. Big difference.
I agree that it would make it statistically likely that their claims are accurate, but their reputation isn’t proof of their claim’s veracity [1].
References