3 ms·
Indeed. Simply defining where the "mid-point" on an issue is represents a very strong power in controlling how the issue is portrayed. Some do this intentionall
by InclinedPlane 10y ago
Indeed. Simply defining where the "mid-point" on an issue is represents a very strong power in controlling how the issue is portrayed. Some do this intentionally, others do it in an attempt to be "objective" while still letting their implicit framing of the issue color how it is handled and presented.
- paradite 10y agoI don't think this particular case is an issue of the "mid-point". You can avoid giving opinions and focus on the facts. In fact many good news articles are almost entirely facts, with a little bit of opinions in a separate section. Here is how I would outline this article: - There is this group of people who shares the same idea who are thought to be crazy. (Intro) - They have attracted some attention and grown in numbers recently. (Background) - Medical experts who study them think they are delusional. (Mainstream view) - This group of people denies such claims and provide personal recounts. (Alternative view) The violent part is only boarder line related to the main issue as it was an exception. So it should only be briefly mentioned, instead of being given an entire section.