4 ms·

How would you make that headline even more centerist? "Conservative" media sources did stoke baseless claims about fraud, which motivated the rioters (I wouldve

How would you make that headline even more centerist? "Conservative" media sources did stoke baseless claims about fraud, which motivated the rioters (I wouldve gone for terrorist here).

sli 6y ago
I'm with you, here. I'm not convinced that downplaying facts just to make a headline read more friendly to a group that quite literally threatened to kill politicians is what I would call journalistic integrity. Sometimes the headlines are alarmist because something alarming happened and we saw it coming on the internet from months away.
- thebigman433 6y ago
  This is exactly it in my opinion. There is not a "but both sides" to every issue, you can call a spade a spade.
refurb 6y ago
You do that by stating facts. Not opinions as facts. “Conservative media outlets accused of stoking baseless election fraud claims” Then the article should lay out what they did. Not “here is how they stoked baseless claims”, but exactly what they did. “Conservative websites repeated a claim of fraud that had already been proven false by election officials.” And it should include comments from those websites on their response to the accusation. Then let the reader make up their own mind. I’m an adult. I don’t need a reporter who barely knows more than I do about a subject to tell me how to interpret the world. Save that for opinion pieces. Not too hard is it?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- PoignardAzur 6y ago
  I'm kind of pissed the above is being grayed out. This. This is how it's done. You go into technical details, not just "fact-checkers proved this was false", but "here's a link to a fact-checker proving this was false". If reality is one-sided, then you expose the facts of reality. Adding a "Reality is obviously one-sided and anyone who disagrees is a manipulating liar" headline is both superfluous and self-destructive.

How would you make that headline even more centerist? "Conservative" media sources did stoke baseless claims about fraud, which motivated the rioters (I wouldve gone for terrorist here).

sli 6y ago

I'm with you, here. I'm not convinced that downplaying facts just to make a headline read more friendly to a group that quite literally threatened to kill politicians is what I would call journalistic integrity. Sometimes the headlines are alarmist because something alarming happened and we saw it coming on the internet from months away.

thebigman433 6y ago
This is exactly it in my opinion. There is not a "but both sides" to every issue, you can call a spade a spade.

refurb 6y ago

You do that by stating facts. Not opinions as facts. “Conservative media outlets accused of stoking baseless election fraud claims” Then the article should lay out what they did. Not “here is how they stoked baseless claims”, but exactly what they did. “Conservative websites repeated a claim of fraud that had already been proven false by election officials.” And it should include comments from those websites on their response to the accusation. Then let the reader make up their own mind. I’m an adult. I don’t need a reporter who barely knows more than I do about a subject to tell me how to interpret the world. Save that for opinion pieces. Not too hard is it?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
PoignardAzur 6y ago
I'm kind of pissed the above is being grayed out. This. This is how it's done. You go into technical details, not just "fact-checkers proved this was false", but "here's a link to a fact-checker proving this was false". If reality is one-sided, then you expose the facts of reality. Adding a "Reality is obviously one-sided and anyone who disagrees is a manipulating liar" headline is both superfluous and self-destructive.