4 ms·

Do you have a suggestion for a "non-hypocritical" title for that article? Or are you saying NPR shouldn't be reporting on the cessation of one of the few pande

Do you have a suggestion for a "non-hypocritical" title for that article? Or are you saying NPR shouldn't be reporting on the cessation of one of the few pandemic response programs that help the average person?

chrisseaton 6y ago
That title’s editorialised. How about just ‘$600 Unemployment Benefit Scheme to End’?
- yungmodulus 6y ago
  It seems like you’re using “editorialised” as a pejorative, but I don’t necessarily understand how it’s negative. Nothing about the headline is hyperbolic or an exaggeration. The string of events from “unsafe to work” —> “cannot work” / “went to work sick” —> “no benefits” does have a direct impact on the economy, unless I’m missing some section there.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > It seems like you’re using “editorialised” as a pejorative No it's a dispassionate statement of fact. Sometimes when I'm choosing not to get too wound up in current events I just want to know what's going on expressed in the simplest way possible. A briefing. I'm sure their opinion here on the impact is extremely sensible, but sometimes I'm not interested in anyone's opinions, no matter how obvious or sensible. This thread was about how to avoid getting involved in people's opinions and just learning the essential facts that you may have to do something about, like a new law to wear a mask, wasn't it?
- Ensorceled 6y ago
  That's not editorial, that's analysis. Editorial would be adding ... "and that's a bad thing" or "and that's a good thing"
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Yes I suppose it's analysis - but doesn't all analysis include some editorial judgement? I mean it isn't literally a fact that it will definitely hit the economy, unless they've got a time machine, it's just their opinion. I'm sure it will prove to be a completely correct opinion! But it's still an editorial opinion. Sometimes you don't want any opinions, you just want the facts, thanks.

chrisseaton 6y ago

That title’s editorialised. How about just ‘$600 Unemployment Benefit Scheme to End’?

yungmodulus 6y ago
It seems like you’re using “editorialised” as a pejorative, but I don’t necessarily understand how it’s negative. Nothing about the headline is hyperbolic or an exaggeration. The string of events from “unsafe to work” —> “cannot work” / “went to work sick” —> “no benefits” does have a direct impact on the economy, unless I’m missing some section there.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > It seems like you’re using “editorialised” as a pejorative No it's a dispassionate statement of fact. Sometimes when I'm choosing not to get too wound up in current events I just want to know what's going on expressed in the simplest way possible. A briefing. I'm sure their opinion here on the impact is extremely sensible, but sometimes I'm not interested in anyone's opinions, no matter how obvious or sensible. This thread was about how to avoid getting involved in people's opinions and just learning the essential facts that you may have to do something about, like a new law to wear a mask, wasn't it?
Ensorceled 6y ago
That's not editorial, that's analysis. Editorial would be adding ... "and that's a bad thing" or "and that's a good thing"
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Yes I suppose it's analysis - but doesn't all analysis include some editorial judgement? I mean it isn't literally a fact that it will definitely hit the economy, unless they've got a time machine, it's just their opinion. I'm sure it will prove to be a completely correct opinion! But it's still an editorial opinion. Sometimes you don't want any opinions, you just want the facts, thanks.