3 ms·

Why does the headline present this as a known fact, while the sub-headline clarifies the fact that this is just a theoretical and unconfirmed possibility? "Tru

by Banthum 10y ago

Why does the headline present this as a known fact, while the sub-headline clarifies the fact that this is just a theoretical and unconfirmed possibility? "Trump administration’s proposed changes may mean travelers from countries including UK, France, Australia and Japan have to share digital information" (emphasis mine). Maybe they could wait to report until they actually know the information they're reporting on? I'm afraid I've learned to totally disregard headlines containing weasel words like "may", "might", "could", etc. It's a sign of motivated manipulation of information and click-baitism.

matt4077 10y ago
By the time you definitely know what a new policy means its too late to do anything about it. In this case, there is most definitely a policy making its way through the administration, and the problems described by the article are on the table. The mays/coulds/woulds are simply a reflection of the changing nature of an unfinished document. The insinuation that the Guardian is just making it up is wrong on its face. Example: [Homeland Security Secretary] Kelly told a House homeland security committee hearing in February: “We want to say for instance, ‘What sites do you visit? And give us your passwords,’ so that we can see what they do on the internet. If they don’t want to give us that information then they don’t come.” So what's a newspaper supposed to do? Not report on it until it is signed law?
BryantD 10y ago
You mean they should wait till they get quotes from government officials discussing the methods of extreme vetting? Wait, they did that. "May" means "if Trump gets his way." It does not mean the WSJ is making up their own ideas of what Trump might do.
rlpb 10y ago
Normally I agree with you. Most of the time this happens, it's a journalist creating a story where there is none. But in this case someone relevant and notable (the "senior counselor to homeland security secretary") is making this representation to government ("House homeland security committee") so I think the article is newsworthy in general. You refer specifically to one statement that does seem unsubstantiated though (a nameless "senior official" is pretty weaselly); I agree with you there.
bigbugbag 10y ago
It could be related with the fact that trump proposed change have been rejected so far. And informing people about it is the way to help preventing such proposed change from happening. So IMHO it's good that they report it.

by Banthum 10y ago

matt4077 10y ago

By the time you definitely know what a new policy means its too late to do anything about it. In this case, there is most definitely a policy making its way through the administration, and the problems described by the article are on the table. The mays/coulds/woulds are simply a reflection of the changing nature of an unfinished document. The insinuation that the Guardian is just making it up is wrong on its face. Example: [Homeland Security Secretary] Kelly told a House homeland security committee hearing in February: “We want to say for instance, ‘What sites do you visit? And give us your passwords,’ so that we can see what they do on the internet. If they don’t want to give us that information then they don’t come.” So what's a newspaper supposed to do? Not report on it until it is signed law?

BryantD 10y ago

You mean they should wait till they get quotes from government officials discussing the methods of extreme vetting? Wait, they did that. "May" means "if Trump gets his way." It does not mean the WSJ is making up their own ideas of what Trump might do.

rlpb 10y ago

Normally I agree with you. Most of the time this happens, it's a journalist creating a story where there is none. But in this case someone relevant and notable (the "senior counselor to homeland security secretary") is making this representation to government ("House homeland security committee") so I think the article is newsworthy in general. You refer specifically to one statement that does seem unsubstantiated though (a nameless "senior official" is pretty weaselly); I agree with you there.

bigbugbag 10y ago

It could be related with the fact that trump proposed change have been rejected so far. And informing people about it is the way to help preventing such proposed change from happening. So IMHO it's good that they report it.