5 ms·
Read closer man. They're not all the same. The descriptions range from the meeting including "skeptics from whom he sought questions..." of which "...plenty res
by jrwoodruff 17y ago
Read closer man. They're not all the same. The descriptions range from the meeting including "skeptics from whom he sought questions..." of which "...plenty responded" to a crowd that "soft-balled him opportunities to knock down criticism."
The NYT's description sounds like a good, thoughtful debate, the Fox News description sounds like a staged PR event. The others fall somewhere in between.
It's about the image you draw in your head of the meeting while reading each passage, and while they report basically the same facts, each article emphasizes said facts differently, creating quite different pictures of how the meeting went down.
- eli 17y agoshrug They're not all the same, but they're all basically true. If you were to assign five writers to cover a totally non-political event, you are still going to get five different characterizations of people at the event. I don't think this is evidence of anything evil. It's a bit like complaining about different movie reviewers with conflicting accounts of the same movie. I'm not denying that news outlets have institutional biases that sometimes comes out in the writing, but this seems like an especially mild case.
- danek 17y agothis made me think of a 2 things 1, the event doesn't even seem like it should be newsworthy. isn't there more important stuff happening? 2, even for the most unimportant of events, it seems the different outlets' bias shows. As usual, Fox portrays Obama in a negative light and the Times makes him seem heroic. At least that's what i took away from it. I mean, it's nothing Earth-shattering and we all knew this already.