4 ms·

Yes, they are running stories about inflation. I think the key difference is how they're going about doing it. I sense that they are intentionally covering the

Yes, they are running stories about inflation. I think the key difference is how they're going about doing it. I sense that they are intentionally covering the situation in non-inflammatory way. This is a departure from how the NYT and WaPost will cover a story when they have an ideological axe to grind. For instance, they bring on experts to talk about inflation in an clinical and analytical way. They talk about the benefits of inflation to try an reassure people it is okay. They aren't going to some small town and taking candid shots of average Joes and Janes looking sad and worried about rising prices. While they mention rising wages, they aren't emphasizing how the rise in wages is lower than the inflation itself. In essence, I sense they are trying to avoid having people get riled up whereas if Red Team were in charge they'd be painting the picture as bleak and terrible.

alphabettsy 5y ago
> I sense that they are intentionally covering the situation in non-inflammatory way. We want more of this though right? I sense that many people can't understand the difference between opinions or editorials and news. I sense that many people actually enjoy the inflammatory way news is sometimes covered unless it's different from the way they'd like to see it. I sense that people can't understand how a single new outlet can have varying opinions and points of view on a single issue and will choose a single one out of many to make their point. Imagine how different things would be if people were intelligent consumers of news. I don't think you can have a news industry dependent on clicks and profits and have no sensationalism. I also don't think you can have a completely unbiased media when people, based on their consumption, don't seem to want it. It's unrealistic given the different biases and motivations that people have.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >> I sense that they are intentionally covering the situation in non-inflammatory way. >We want more of this though right? Yes, in principle, but with the caveat that they don't do this in a partisan and selective way. For instance the whole "Kids in Cages" phenomenon is still happening but we never hear about it anymore - in fact they're just called "Child Migrant Facilities" by the press secretary and the media is basically silent compared to the fervor they were covering the situation previously. To me at least, the fact that they calmed down isn't a consolation because I sense they're just doing it because their preferred team is in charge now. I think journalists are masters of rhetoric and can spin a situation in so many diverse ways while still being almost entirely accurate and truthful. It all depends on what facets of the situation they want to present and the insinuations that come along with it.
  - alphabettsy 5y ago
    > “Kids in Cages” There have been facilities before, but this isn’t happening the same way it was where separation was on purpose. There are stories covering the current conditions, but I think you’re overlooking the fact that the prior administration and supporters seemed to embrace and encourage that narrative because they saw it as a deterrent. > I think journalists are masters of rhetoric You should meet the average journalist. Just like any other industry, the vast majority are unremarkable people. They’re not rhetorical masterminds. Like most people they see and write things from their point of view. What’s more interesting to me is how some of the biggest names in media are obviously the rhetorical masters you speak of. I’m referring specifically to the TV and YouTube stars. Some of them are incredibly good at being convincing even if often contradictory or wrong. I also think video can be effective in ways text cannot be.
ameetgaitonde 5y ago
This was a trending topic on Twitter last week, and some of the criticism was how the story ignored the hundreds of dollars this family would have received from the Child Tax Credit to offset the costs. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/people-are-having-a-cow-over-cnns-12-gallons-of-milk-a-week-segment-heres-why-11636051263 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/people-are-having-a-cow-ov...

alphabettsy 5y ago

> I sense that they are intentionally covering the situation in non-inflammatory way. We want more of this though right? I sense that many people can't understand the difference between opinions or editorials and news. I sense that many people actually enjoy the inflammatory way news is sometimes covered unless it's different from the way they'd like to see it. I sense that people can't understand how a single new outlet can have varying opinions and points of view on a single issue and will choose a single one out of many to make their point. Imagine how different things would be if people were intelligent consumers of news. I don't think you can have a news industry dependent on clicks and profits and have no sensationalism. I also don't think you can have a completely unbiased media when people, based on their consumption, don't seem to want it. It's unrealistic given the different biases and motivations that people have.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
>> I sense that they are intentionally covering the situation in non-inflammatory way. >We want more of this though right? Yes, in principle, but with the caveat that they don't do this in a partisan and selective way. For instance the whole "Kids in Cages" phenomenon is still happening but we never hear about it anymore - in fact they're just called "Child Migrant Facilities" by the press secretary and the media is basically silent compared to the fervor they were covering the situation previously. To me at least, the fact that they calmed down isn't a consolation because I sense they're just doing it because their preferred team is in charge now. I think journalists are masters of rhetoric and can spin a situation in so many diverse ways while still being almost entirely accurate and truthful. It all depends on what facets of the situation they want to present and the insinuations that come along with it.
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  > “Kids in Cages” There have been facilities before, but this isn’t happening the same way it was where separation was on purpose. There are stories covering the current conditions, but I think you’re overlooking the fact that the prior administration and supporters seemed to embrace and encourage that narrative because they saw it as a deterrent. > I think journalists are masters of rhetoric You should meet the average journalist. Just like any other industry, the vast majority are unremarkable people. They’re not rhetorical masterminds. Like most people they see and write things from their point of view. What’s more interesting to me is how some of the biggest names in media are obviously the rhetorical masters you speak of. I’m referring specifically to the TV and YouTube stars. Some of them are incredibly good at being convincing even if often contradictory or wrong. I also think video can be effective in ways text cannot be.

ameetgaitonde 5y ago

This was a trending topic on Twitter last week, and some of the criticism was how the story ignored the hundreds of dollars this family would have received from the Child Tax Credit to offset the costs. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/people-are-having-a-cow-over-cnns-12-gallons-of-milk-a-week-segment-heres-why-11636051263 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/people-are-having-a-cow-ov...