2 ms·

Just read CNN for half an hour, that's all the proof you need. The Trump thing is this article is pure editorialising. The AP news wire this story is based on

Just read CNN for half an hour, that's all the proof you need. The Trump thing is this article is pure editorialising. The AP news wire this story is based on has nothing of the sort. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/357f65cd8a074001a8712a2da4cbbeac/us-says-chinese-warship-stole-navy-underwater-drone http://bigstory.ap.org/article/357f65cd8a074001a8712a2da4cbb...

kbenson 10y ago
Yes, it is editorializing. It's also clearly prefixed as such to distinguish it from factual data. It's a valid and possible conclusion as to the motivations for China's actions, given their prior statements and lack of statements regarding this incident. Would the article be better for leaving out any international political context? I think most people would agree that international politics are at play here, and a good news organization will attempt to help with what might be happening so the layman might understand. You might not agree with their assessment (you haven't actually stated whether you think Trump's statements played any part), but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. I just looked up the breitbart coverage (two articles?[1][2]) of this story, and to my eyes, it seems a bit odd that it doesn't include any context as to possible reasons why. RT[3] actually has a fairly fleshed out article[3], and implies a different reasoning, which is that there's posturing over the waters there specifically. It was published a few hours after the other ones though. NBC[4] seems the most balanced so far. It mentions Trump, but as just one of a few tense exchanges, points out it's not a major thing, it's just unprofessional, and that it actually wasn't that close to the disputed area. It's also only 20 minutes old, apparently. Different outlets and even just article authors will have different takes on the news. This may change over time as stories develop. It's not out of place to look for what you think is relevant and include it in the article, as long as items that are facts are presented as such and sourced, and items that are opinion are presented accordingly as well. 1: http://www.breitbart.com/news/china-captures-underwater-drone-from-u-s-ship-in-south-china-sea/ http://www.breitbart.com/news/china-captures-underwater-dron... 2: http://www.breitbart.com/news/us-says-chinese-warship-seized-navy-underwater-drone/ http://www.breitbart.com/news/us-says-chinese-warship-seized... 3: https://www.rt.com/usa/370559-china-us-drone-sea/ https://www.rt.com/usa/370559-china-us-drone-sea/ 4: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dod-official-chinese-navy-stole-u-s-underwater-drone-n696941 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dod-official-chinese-nav...

kbenson 10y ago

Yes, it is editorializing. It's also clearly prefixed as such to distinguish it from factual data. It's a valid and possible conclusion as to the motivations for China's actions, given their prior statements and lack of statements regarding this incident. Would the article be better for leaving out any international political context? I think most people would agree that international politics are at play here, and a good news organization will attempt to help with what might be happening so the layman might understand. You might not agree with their assessment (you haven't actually stated whether you think Trump's statements played any part), but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. I just looked up the breitbart coverage (two articles?[1][2]) of this story, and to my eyes, it seems a bit odd that it doesn't include any context as to possible reasons why. RT[3] actually has a fairly fleshed out article[3], and implies a different reasoning, which is that there's posturing over the waters there specifically. It was published a few hours after the other ones though. NBC[4] seems the most balanced so far. It mentions Trump, but as just one of a few tense exchanges, points out it's not a major thing, it's just unprofessional, and that it actually wasn't that close to the disputed area. It's also only 20 minutes old, apparently. Different outlets and even just article authors will have different takes on the news. This may change over time as stories develop. It's not out of place to look for what you think is relevant and include it in the article, as long as items that are facts are presented as such and sourced, and items that are opinion are presented accordingly as well. 1: http://www.breitbart.com/news/china-captures-underwater-drone-from-u-s-ship-in-south-china-sea/ http://www.breitbart.com/news/china-captures-underwater-dron... 2: http://www.breitbart.com/news/us-says-chinese-warship-seized-navy-underwater-drone/ http://www.breitbart.com/news/us-says-chinese-warship-seized... 3: https://www.rt.com/usa/370559-china-us-drone-sea/ https://www.rt.com/usa/370559-china-us-drone-sea/ 4: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dod-official-chinese-navy-stole-u-s-underwater-drone-n696941 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dod-official-chinese-nav...