SEMI-POL: News vs Opinion

[the_mother_thing]

I didn't want to send another discussion off topic, and felt this topic warranted its own thread. Hopefully this can be a productive discussion on navigating the "media" cesspool.

What sparked this topic (not to appear 'picking' on Erica; this isn't about the "right" or "left"):

But then again, faux news, so of course this one loon will be trotted out to instill fear in the hearts of all conservatives.

Fox isn't the only guilty culprit. HuffPo - for example, and frequently cited by many on the left - is 'on par' with Fox (per the chart Kath shared) with regard to slanted news.

Chart (halfway down): [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/march-organizer-might-have-had-terrorist-ties.228237/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/march-organizer-might-have-had-terrorist-ties.228237/[/URL]

HuffPo's main page is plastered with not only a dozen specific anti-Chump stories, but a slew of others that take a direct negative aim at those on the right, And several other fear-mongering pieces feeding liberals' 'thirst for blood'.

But enough about politics & slant.

The problem with both (any so many others) is that a lot of the articles you read are not really "news"; they're editorials (opinion pieces). The article Ruby cited (teacher shooting Trump) is an editorial - the views & opinions by that writer. Years ago, most news outlets hosted a couple editorials in their publications for variety, perspective, etc. Now, they dominate the various outlets (tv, websites, even print).

A "news" story (intended to relay timely facts about an event or topic) should contain four key items in the first paragraph/sentence: who, what, when, where; the "what" & "why" usually immediately follow it, and it should never contain the words "I" or "me" (clues you're reading an opinion piece). Anything else will generally fall into either the editorial realm or be considered a "feature" story (human/general interest type stuff, how someone conquered a great feat, etc).

The face of news (generally speaking) has changed so much over the last two decades. Now, thanks to the Internet, 24-hour news cycle, and social media, most of what we see/read is opinion and not really "news". EVERYONE who can form a complete sentence considers themselves a journalist (albeit sometimes masked as a "contributor"). And they (they media) don't do a very good job of making it clear which type of article they are pushing on viewers/readers.

You (collectively) have to decipher the difference not only in the individual articles you read, but the overall credibility and mission of the 'media outlet' that airs/publishes it. I think society needs more features about people and the good they "do", and less editorials about what people "think".

 

[missy]

Hi JoCoJenn, I agree news should be reported in an objective manner with the facts and just the facts. And also agree there has been a shift away from reporting objective news and it has been accelerating for the past 20 plus years at least. Editorials are good too and that is where opinions are shared and that's where they should stay IMO.

Here are some interesting links. I confess I only quickly skimmed the link just now because I just woke up and it is early and I am only on my first cup of coffee and mainly because the print is too small. LOL. I will enlarge it and read it more thoroughly later. In the meantime here it is.

https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/A-Real-Need-for-the-Real-News

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2014-10

The most trusted news outlets in America, according to a new study from Pew Research Center, are actually British.

BBC and The Economist top the list of outlets that are trusted by every ideological group, while BuzzFeed and The Rush Limbaugh Show are at the bottom.

Hahaha love that.


http://www.businessinsider.com/13-things-we-just-learned-about-conservatives-and-liberals-in-america-2014-10#ixzz3GnEqDfnT


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/monkeymind/2016/10/my-quest-for-unbiased-news-or-more-notes-on-the-fools-errand.html

 

[bunnycat]

I didn't want to send another discussion off topic, and felt this topic warranted its own thread. Hopefully this can be a productive discussion on navigating the "media" cesspool.

What sparked this topic (not to appear 'picking' on Erica; this isn't about the "right" or "left"):

But then again, faux news, so of course this one loon will be trotted out to instill fear in the hearts of all conservatives.

Fox isn't the only guilty culprit. HuffPo - for example, and frequently cited by many on the left - is 'on par' with Fox (per the chart Kath shared) with regard to slanted news.

Chart (halfway down): [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/march-organizer-might-have-had-terrorist-ties.228237/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/march-organizer-might-have-had-terrorist-ties.228237/[/URL]

HuffPo's main page is plastered with not only a dozen specific anti-Chump stories, but a slew of others that take a direct negative aim at those on the right, And several other fear-mongering pieces feeding liberals' 'thirst for blood'.

But enough about politics & slant.

The problem with both (any so many others) is that a lot of the articles you read are not really "news"; they're editorials (opinion pieces). The article Ruby cited (teacher shooting Trump) is an editorial - the views & opinions by that writer. Years ago, most news outlets hosted a couple editorials in their publications for variety, perspective, etc. Now, they dominate the various outlets (tv, websites, even print).

A "news" story (intended to relay timely facts about an event or topic) should contain four key items in the first paragraph/sentence: who, what, when, where; the "what" & "why" usually immediately follow it, and it should never contain the words "I" or "me" (clues you're reading an opinion piece). Anything else will generally fall into either the editorial realm or be considered a "feature" story (human/general interest type stuff, how someone conquered a great feat, etc).

The face of news (generally speaking) has changed so much over the last two decades. Now, thanks to the Internet, 24-hour news cycle, and social media, most of what we see/read is opinion and not really "news". EVERYONE who can form a complete sentence considers themselves a journalist (albeit sometimes masked as a "contributor"). And they (they media) don't do a very good job of making it clear which type of article they are pushing on viewers/readers.


You (collectively) have to decipher the difference not only in the individual articles you read, but the overall credibility and mission of the 'media outlet' that airs/publishes it. I think society needs more features about people and the good they "do", and less editorials about what people "think".

Very true. And a good point to add on to a mental checklist. Though an opinion article doesn't necessarily make it wrong, it is good to know when you are looking at opinions. If something is marked "contributor", is it considered a subset of "editorial" (ie- opinion)?

 

[the_mother_thing]

Very true. And a good point to add on to a mental checklist. Though an opinion article doesn't necessarily make it wrong, it is good to know when you are looking at opinions. If something is marked "contributor", is it considered a subset of "editorial" (ie- opinion)?

I would not use that criteria solely to determine what is news vs. opinion. There could be situations where someone uses/has that title or byline as a guest writer or commentator of (actual) 'news'. That said, I personally find it usually does reflect someone sharing individual perspective on a matter, be it political, medical, educational, etc., and these people are rarely without an agenda of some kind.

Fox is a great example of "contributor" overuse ... it seems everyone on most of their shows are "Fox News Contributors" who may or may not actually be a reliable, objective expert on the topic at hand. It's one of the reasons I take their contributors comments with a grain of salt, if I watch/read them at all. Similarly, their abuse of "THIS IS A FOX NEWS ALERT" every time someone passes gas just aggravates me, and should be limited to actual "alerts" such as a tornado, a mass casualty event, etc.

Other media outlets are guilty as well. I think, in the past, the 'contributor' title was much more strictly & responsibly limited to actual, objective subject matter experts on complex topics such as those I mentioned above.

As the saying goes, 'consider the source' ... today, you have to do so much more carefully.

 

[VRBeauty]

I didn't want to send another discussion off topic, and felt this topic warranted its own thread. Hopefully this can be a productive discussion on navigating the "media" cesspool...


The problem with both (any so many others) is that a lot of the articles you read are not really "news"; they're editorials (opinion pieces). The article Ruby cited (teacher shooting Trump) is an editorial - the views & opinions by that writer. Years ago, most news outlets hosted a couple editorials in their publications for variety, perspective, etc. Now, they dominate the various outlets (tv, websites, even print).

A "news" story (intended to relay timely facts about an event or topic) should contain four key items in the first paragraph/sentence: who, what, when, where; the "what" & "why" usually immediately follow it, and it should never contain the words "I" or "me" (clues you're reading an opinion piece). Anything else will generally fall into either the editorial realm or be considered a "feature" story (human/general interest type stuff, how someone conquered a great feat, etc).

This is an important topic to discuss apart from specific stories or events - thank you for starting this discussion.

IMO, you're right in distinguishing between facts and opinion. I do think "analysis" is a part of responsible journalism too. Journalists are (hopefully) paid not only to gather and report on facts, but to help put them into context. Where we might spend an hour a day perusing the news for facts on a wide variety of topics, they spend their working time hunting down and gathering facts. and organizing and assimilating them. What distinguishes a good journalist is not just chasing down facts, but the ability to analyze a lot of fact to discern a pattern - to link facts together to uncover a larger picture - and to show how individual facts or the larger picture might be relevant to the readers/consumers.

Sometimes looking at that larger picture may lead to "I"-based conclusions... an assessment, for example, of a politician's character or motivations, or a projection of larger trends.

"I" think our role as media consumers is to look at the facts and determine for ourselves whether they support the proffered analysis or conclusions. To differentiate between anecdotes and isolated observations, and data. To consider whether there are alternative interpretations (as opposed to alternative facts ) that could explain an observation. And yes, even to see how other who might have different viewpoints have analyzed the same information.

In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[bunnycat]

I didn't want to send another discussion off topic, and felt this topic warranted its own thread. Hopefully this can be a productive discussion on navigating the "media" cesspool...


The problem with both (any so many others) is that a lot of the articles you read are not really "news"; they're editorials (opinion pieces). The article Ruby cited (teacher shooting Trump) is an editorial - the views & opinions by that writer. Years ago, most news outlets hosted a couple editorials in their publications for variety, perspective, etc. Now, they dominate the various outlets (tv, websites, even print).

A "news" story (intended to relay timely facts about an event or topic) should contain four key items in the first paragraph/sentence: who, what, when, where; the "what" & "why" usually immediately follow it, and it should never contain the words "I" or "me" (clues you're reading an opinion piece). Anything else will generally fall into either the editorial realm or be considered a "feature" story (human/general interest type stuff, how someone conquered a great feat, etc).

This is an important topic to discuss apart from specific stories or events - thank you for starting this discussion.

IMO, you're right in distinguishing between facts and opinion. I do think "analysis" is a part of responsible journalism too. Journalists are (hopefully) paid not only to gather and report on facts, but to help put them into context. Where we might spend an hour a day perusing the news for facts on a wide variety of topics, they spend their working time hunting down and gathering facts. and organizing and assimilating them. What distinguishes a good journalist is not just chasing down facts, but the ability to analyze a lot of fact to discern a pattern - to link facts together to uncover a larger picture - and to show how individual facts or the larger picture might be relevant to the readers/consumers.

Sometimes looking at that larger picture may lead to "I"-based conclusions... an assessment, for example, of a politician's character or motivations, or a projection of larger trends.

"I" think our role as media consumers is to look at the facts and determine for ourselves whether they support the proffered analysis or conclusions. To differentiate between anecdotes and isolated observations, and data. To consider whether there are alternative interpretations (as opposed to alternative facts ) that could explain an observation. And yes, even to see how other who might have different viewpoints have analyzed the same information.

In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Agreed- I'll look at anything I am reading doubly carefully but not discount an opinion either. Fortunately, I don't have TV, and tend to read WSJ or NYT for news.

 

[the_mother_thing]

And this right here is just one example why HuffPo is such absolute garbage and makes the bottom of a cesspool look tasty!



This picture is on their main web page right now. What makes it so disgusting - and their organization the epitome of irresponsible 'journalism' - is that clicking the headline or picture takes you to an article (link below) that has ZERO to do with a child laying (I assume dead) face-down in the surf.

"Trump Targets Muslims, Refugees In New Executive Order Issued On Holocaust Remembrance Day"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-bans-muslims-refugees-executive-order_us_588bcaf3e4b0b065cbbc07ed?i2du1kzud1cx9wwmi&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

What the #$%& does that picture have to do with that story? Anyone?

Say what you want about Fox, but I've NEVER seen something this ... I don't even have the words.

 

[missy]

Bill Watterson hits it right on the nose as always.

 

[siv1]

Re:

And this right here is just one example why HuffPo is such absolute garbage and makes the bottom of a cesspool look tasty!



This picture is on their main web page right now. What makes it so disgusting - and their organization the epitome of irresponsible 'journalism' - is that clicking the headline or picture takes you to an article (link below) that has ZERO to do with a child laying (I assume dead) face-down in the surf.

"Trump Targets Muslims, Refugees In New Executive Order Issued On Holocaust Remembrance Day"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-bans-muslims-refugees-executive-order_us_588bcaf3e4b0b065cbbc07ed?i2du1kzud1cx9wwmi&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

What the #$%& does that picture have to do with that story? Anyone?

Say what you want about Fox, but I've NEVER seen something this ... I don't even have the words.

IMO HuffPo incites hatred. During the presidential campaign they had a tagline under EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE about how President Trump was all of these "ists ". Most of the usual political posters would use the exact tagline in most of their posts. To me, they sounded like a bunch of parrots.

Edited to add: I really appreciate how President Trump and Vice President Pence call on all the smaller news outlets when ever they give a news conference. The people that have been ignored under Obama are finally being heard under President Trump.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Re: Re:

Missy - that cartoon - quite sadly - is spot on.

IMO HuffPo incites hatred. During the presidential campaign they had a tagline under EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE about how President Trump was all of these "ists ".

I remember seeing that as well, and recall thinking how interesting their judgments about his lack of diversity & tolerance considering their obvious agenda and tweet they sent out with this photo of their all-female/white editorial staff.



DD and I spent a good chunk of time last night, talking about a lot of this stuff (the 'news', what is the reported, how is shapes opinion, and how to discern truth & facts from false narratives and agendas). That's how I came across the pic & headline above. We were comparing various media sites to compare those who appeared to be objective and without an 'agenda' to those that do not. She - a fairly independent-minded 18 yr old - was equally disturbed by HuffPo's page. I don't teach her 'what' to think or believe; rather, 'how' to make fair assessments and arrive at her own conclusions.