2 ms·

> Why is 'reunification' quoted there? Because it's a quotation. Someone other than the journalist said it. The quotation marks let you know that.

mytailorisrich 5y ago
They are quoting a whole sentence, not a single word yet they put quotation marks around a specific word. This is not neutral at all.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > This is not neutral at all. I think you've got it backwards - the point is to be fastidiously neutral. Some people think it's reunification, some people think it isn't. So instead of taking one side and saying what they think, they just tell you what the relevant person said. They aren't quoting a whole sentence, as it comes from a speech and they want to make it understandable without having to read the whole thing. It's supposed to be simple reporting, not opinion. Especially if you look at the venue - it's a news agency. This is all totally normal, completely above-board, best-practice journalism. I have no idea why people push back against it. Are you possibly confusing quotation marks with scare quotes? That's not what these are. They aren't making a point using the quotation marks. They're trying to not make a point. Just to convey the facts.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    But they are taking side! Of course some people are against reunification but trying to push the narrative that this is not a matter of reunification really is propaganda and not fact. What I quoted is not neutral journalism. Neutral journalism on this issue is extremely rare. It has become a widespread trick to push a narrative under the cover of being neutral or irrelevant facts. Clever use of quotation marks under the pretext that not everyone agrees, systematic use of 'democratic Taiwan' are 2 examples of subtle and clever bias when it comes to reporting of cross-straight relations. Another one is today's reporting on the BBC for the 10th October (national day of ROC), which was not even subtle. But it's hard for the public who does not know about an issue and trust what they are told. And of course there is one so blind as those who will not see.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > But they are taking side! I don't even know which side you think they're taking! So it can't be that strong a stance can it.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  It's not neutral. It means "as they say", as opposed to "as we would say", or "don't get too attached to what you think this word should mean, here we're using the meaning as used by the quoted, and we all know that bit everybody agrees on that". It's a legitimate use of quotations IMO as it clarifies the text, in particular the relationship between the writer (the journalist) and the originator of the message being relayed and interpreted.
  - urbandw311er 5y ago
    Perhaps you’re thinking of single quotes? I believe the ones used here are double quotes which are used to convey reported speech. Source: was a professional writer.
    - ithkuil 5y ago
      I'm talking about the literary device of quoting one word of somebody's speech and inserting it in a text that that person didn't utter. By quoting the word you can make clear that it's meant to be read with the connotation of the quoted person which may not be aligned with the write nor the reader's.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

They are quoting a whole sentence, not a single word yet they put quotation marks around a specific word. This is not neutral at all.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> This is not neutral at all. I think you've got it backwards - the point is to be fastidiously neutral. Some people think it's reunification, some people think it isn't. So instead of taking one side and saying what they think, they just tell you what the relevant person said. They aren't quoting a whole sentence, as it comes from a speech and they want to make it understandable without having to read the whole thing. It's supposed to be simple reporting, not opinion. Especially if you look at the venue - it's a news agency. This is all totally normal, completely above-board, best-practice journalism. I have no idea why people push back against it. Are you possibly confusing quotation marks with scare quotes? That's not what these are. They aren't making a point using the quotation marks. They're trying to not make a point. Just to convey the facts.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  But they are taking side! Of course some people are against reunification but trying to push the narrative that this is not a matter of reunification really is propaganda and not fact. What I quoted is not neutral journalism. Neutral journalism on this issue is extremely rare. It has become a widespread trick to push a narrative under the cover of being neutral or irrelevant facts. Clever use of quotation marks under the pretext that not everyone agrees, systematic use of 'democratic Taiwan' are 2 examples of subtle and clever bias when it comes to reporting of cross-straight relations. Another one is today's reporting on the BBC for the 10th October (national day of ROC), which was not even subtle. But it's hard for the public who does not know about an issue and trust what they are told. And of course there is one so blind as those who will not see.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > But they are taking side! I don't even know which side you think they're taking! So it can't be that strong a stance can it.
ithkuil 5y ago
It's not neutral. It means "as they say", as opposed to "as we would say", or "don't get too attached to what you think this word should mean, here we're using the meaning as used by the quoted, and we all know that bit everybody agrees on that". It's a legitimate use of quotations IMO as it clarifies the text, in particular the relationship between the writer (the journalist) and the originator of the message being relayed and interpreted.
- urbandw311er 5y ago
  Perhaps you’re thinking of single quotes? I believe the ones used here are double quotes which are used to convey reported speech. Source: was a professional writer.
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    I'm talking about the literary device of quoting one word of somebody's speech and inserting it in a text that that person didn't utter. By quoting the word you can make clear that it's meant to be read with the connotation of the quoted person which may not be aligned with the write nor the reader's.