3 ms·

I mean, you can be non-partisan and objective and STILL write "negative" headlines about Trump, because so much of what he does is hateful, baffling or otherwis

I mean, you can be non-partisan and objective and STILL write "negative" headlines about Trump, because so much of what he does is hateful, baffling or otherwise negative.

warp_factor 8y ago
That's where I disagree. taking a negative stance on Trump IS taking a side. What I would like is for the journalist to report the fact and let us reader chose if it is negative or positive. The facts can include the views of external people giving their views on it (as long as it is clearly documented in the sources that it is the views of someone external). But if the journalist himself takes a side, then all bets are lost.
- normal_man 8y ago
  Here are the Trump-related headlines on CNN right now: Trump says he's on same page as intel chiefs after insulting them Erin Burnett: Tapes don't lie, but Trump ... Even some Republicans balk as Trump targets US spy chiefs None of those would violate your criteria, but any reasonable person would say they are negative. At some point you just have to accept reality and stop expecting news outlets to bend over backwards trying to make it seem like both sides are the same.
  - warp_factor 8y ago
    Those headlines are very biased in my opinion, in a subtle way to influence the reader to start each article with a bad view of Trump. >> Trump says he's on same page as intel chiefs after insulting them after "insulting them"? The choices of words here makes us already take a stance even before opening the article. >> Erin Burnett: Tapes don't lie, but Trump ... Seriously? The title already takes a stance on the view that Trump is lying all around. >> Even some Republicans balk as Trump targets US spy chiefs The choice of the word "Even" to make it look like it is absolutely extreme. Those are the headlines on Fox News: Trump Jr. calls out Schiff after report shows mystery calls weren't to dad Trump dismisses border wall negotiations as 'waste of time' Those are the same type of headlines with bias on the other side.
    - normal_man 8y ago
      He did insult them. That is a fact of the story. What word would you prefer? It attributes the stance to Erin Burnett, which you said is fine. Saying "Even" is perfectly justified here. Parties, especially the Republican party, tend to march in lockstep with their president. The fact that GOP members are opposing Trump on this IS the story
    - ramsss 8y ago
      I'm not sure if you understand what "bias" or "opinion" mean, as the Fox News headlines you gave as examples are also not even close to being good examples. "Trump dismisses border wall negotiations as 'waste of time'" is an entirely factual, unbiased description of Trump's characterization of the border wall negotiations. You could not have given an example of a more fact-based, unbiased headline if you had tried.

I mean, you can be non-partisan and objective and STILL write "negative" headlines about Trump, because so much of what he does is hateful, baffling or otherwise negative.

warp_factor 8y ago

That's where I disagree. taking a negative stance on Trump IS taking a side. What I would like is for the journalist to report the fact and let us reader chose if it is negative or positive. The facts can include the views of external people giving their views on it (as long as it is clearly documented in the sources that it is the views of someone external). But if the journalist himself takes a side, then all bets are lost.

normal_man 8y ago
Here are the Trump-related headlines on CNN right now: Trump says he's on same page as intel chiefs after insulting them Erin Burnett: Tapes don't lie, but Trump ... Even some Republicans balk as Trump targets US spy chiefs None of those would violate your criteria, but any reasonable person would say they are negative. At some point you just have to accept reality and stop expecting news outlets to bend over backwards trying to make it seem like both sides are the same.
- warp_factor 8y ago
  Those headlines are very biased in my opinion, in a subtle way to influence the reader to start each article with a bad view of Trump. >> Trump says he's on same page as intel chiefs after insulting them after "insulting them"? The choices of words here makes us already take a stance even before opening the article. >> Erin Burnett: Tapes don't lie, but Trump ... Seriously? The title already takes a stance on the view that Trump is lying all around. >> Even some Republicans balk as Trump targets US spy chiefs The choice of the word "Even" to make it look like it is absolutely extreme. Those are the headlines on Fox News: Trump Jr. calls out Schiff after report shows mystery calls weren't to dad Trump dismisses border wall negotiations as 'waste of time' Those are the same type of headlines with bias on the other side.
  - normal_man 8y ago
    He did insult them. That is a fact of the story. What word would you prefer? It attributes the stance to Erin Burnett, which you said is fine. Saying "Even" is perfectly justified here. Parties, especially the Republican party, tend to march in lockstep with their president. The fact that GOP members are opposing Trump on this IS the story
  - ramsss 8y ago
    I'm not sure if you understand what "bias" or "opinion" mean, as the Fox News headlines you gave as examples are also not even close to being good examples. "Trump dismisses border wall negotiations as 'waste of time'" is an entirely factual, unbiased description of Trump's characterization of the border wall negotiations. You could not have given an example of a more fact-based, unbiased headline if you had tried.