5 ms·
In what way is that description inaccurate?
by chambo622 10y ago
In what way is that description inaccurate?
- jbmorgado 10y agoThe request was to identify a "government official impersonator" not a "critic". Either that was really the real motive of the officials that made the subpoena or not (my guess is actually not btw), is certainly not up to the lousy journalist that wrote that title to decide.
- danso 10y ago> is certainly not up to the lousy journalist that wrote that title to decide. Journalists are allowed to interpret. In fact, that's a core part of journalism.
- jbmorgado 10y agoI think you are mistaking journalism with creative writing. The core part of journalism is to present facts and let the interpretation up to the reader.
- mrunkel 10y agoSo, like a phone book? Journalism should be about illuminating a topic, including providing context. I have my gripes with journalism that misuses facts and statistics to spin an alternate reality, but I don't think this was the case. The twitter account never pretended to be a US official, it's always been clear that they are an "alt" account. So for you to claim (someone who, if I'm not mistaken, has zero first hand knowledge about the situation) that your interpretation is more accurate than a "lousy" journalist who actually researched the issue is to my mind a little weird. BTW, I'm sure you're aware that editors write headlines, not journalists right?
- jbmorgado 10y ago"So, like a phone book?" No, like a scientific paper. Have you ever tried to read one and understand this alien concept on how you can actually present facts without giving leeway to your personal politic views and fantasies?
- danso 10y agoScientific papers are opinionated. Look at the one for PageRank: http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html
- danso 10y agoNo it isn't. A journalist does research and reporting and what the reader sees is a filtered view of all the facts (and non-facts) gathered, analyzed, and cross-referenced in that process.
- Karunamon 10y agoI'm not seeing the substantial difference between "opinion columnist" and "journalist" anymore. The journalist's job is: ..to report a factual event that happened and give the reader enough factual context and analysis for that report to be useful. Not: ..to convince the reader of one position or another ..to expound on their own political beliefs or opinions I find that many self-described journalists are able to avoid the second problem but hold up the first as if it were a virtue.
- klipt 10y agoHow do you know they weren't a government official? And does the 1st amendment not grant both government officials and civilians the right to anonymous free speech?
- brainfire 10y agoGovernment employees are actually more free in this case- the first amendment means they can't be fired for their non-official speech where it would be fine for a company to fire them.
- mythrwy 10y agoYou are getting downvoted but I agree 100%. Headlines designed to promote an agenda rather than inform should be called out for exactly what they are. This is true no matter how much you might agree with the agenda being promoted.
- jbmorgado 10y agoFunny how someone get's also downvoted just by saying he agrees with an unpopular opinion here. Give way to the thought police... but only in their online echo chambers, cause in the real world the majority really doesn't care about their imaginary safe spaces.
- duskwuff 10y ago"Impersonator" would imply that the operator of that account was attempting to pass themselves off as an official representative of USCIS, which, quite simply, is not the case at all.
- pervycreeper 10y agoBy omission. The account was not merely a critic. Critics aren't exactly hard to find!