3 ms·
They do add punditry. They just slide it in subtly and don't acknowledge it, which is vastly more dangerous than having an opinion column beside your news artic
by dlkf 6y ago
They do add punditry. They just slide it in subtly and don't acknowledge it, which is vastly more dangerous than having an opinion column beside your news articles. Consider this sentence:
> Media outlets can continue to report reliable facts, but that won't turn the trend around on its own.
(Emphasis mine)
What are we to make of the text before the comma? It straightforwardly implies that the media is, and has been, fully reliable. Is this a "bare fact" or is it opinion?
- dexen 6y agoExcellent explanation and example, thank you.
- everybodyknows 6y agoA few lines above your quote, we have this: > Axios has a stated mission to "help restore trust in fact-based news. And a link onward to a piece with the title Our promises to you: Axios Bill of Rights: https://www.axios.com/axios-bill-of-rights-f4f96067-ff4c-47d5-bdf2-39d536108a0c.html https://www.axios.com/axios-bill-of-rights-f4f96067-ff4c-47d... First, the US Constitution's Bill Of Rights is not a list of promises; rather a list of demands that the central authority limit impositions of its power upon regional authorities and free citizens. Axios tries to slip into the more respected clothing that is the work of others -- but it does not fit. Worse follows. As prolog to the Axios "Rights" we find this: >Why it matters: Nothing matters more than winning the war for truth. https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-21510,00.html https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-21... What is or could be a "war for truth"? When has gaining truth ever been the aim of war? When relations have degenerated to a state of warfare, hasn't truth always suffered violence rather than been "won"?