Post Reply What's with same piece of news gets reported so differently by different outlets?
33254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 12/30/16
Not surprised but this media spin thing really irks me.

Los Angeles times in its piece "Trump was silent on new U.S. sanctions against Russia, but he praises Putin's response" focused on how Trump is going against a bipartisan view, while the New York Times piece "Trump Gets an Opening from Russia, but the Path Is Risky" paints a much different picture, one of Trump's deliberate messaging to Putin and Russia.

Not only the content, the tone-setting of the pieces couldn't be more different:


LA
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-silent-on-new-u-s-sanctions-1483128643-htmlstory.html

President-elect Donald Trump's response was terse and dismissive, saying it was time to "move on to bigger and better things."



NY
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/us/russia-vladimir-putin-donald-trump.html
That clears the way for Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin to declare that they are starting anew.. "...a goodwill gesture..."


The heck. Good thing people don't really subscribe to newspapers nowadays, otherwise it's just the daily morning "feed".

News feed, or strings of opinion buried in subtext?
Posted 12/30/16 , edited 12/30/16

nanikore2 wrote:

Not surprised but this media spin thing really irks me.

Los Angeles times in its piece "Trump was silent on new U.S. sanctions against Russia, but he praises Putin's response" focused on how Trump is going against a bipartisan view, while the New York Times piece "Trump Gets an Opening from Russia, but the Path Is Risky" paints a much different picture, one of Trump's deliberate messaging to Putin and Russia.

Not only the content, the tone-setting of the pieces couldn't be more different:


LA
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-silent-on-new-u-s-sanctions-1483128643-htmlstory.html

President-elect Donald Trump's response was terse and dismissive, saying it was time to "move on to bigger and better things."



NY
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/us/russia-vladimir-putin-donald-trump.html
That clears the way for Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin to declare that they are starting anew.. "...a goodwill gesture..."


The heck. Good thing people don't really subscribe to newspapers nowadays, otherwise it's just the daily morning "feed".

News feed, or strings of opinion buried in subtext?


It's not really new, people view things differently based on a whole bunch of different past experiences.
runec 
36293 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/30/16 , edited 12/30/16

nanikore2 wrote:
Not only the content, the tone-setting of the pieces couldn't be more different:


The first is news and the second is opinion I think. The second one is "analysis" and lists 3 different authors(!) as well as a fourth reporter at the bottom.
33254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 12/30/16

runec wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:
Not only the content, the tone-setting of the pieces couldn't be more different:


The first is news and the second is opinion I think. The second one is "analysis" and lists 3 different authors(!) as well as a fourth reporter at the bottom.


Why didn't the LA piece simply started with Trump praising Putin's response (the bare news) instead of starting off emphasizing on the contrast between what he did earlier, both in the title as well as the opening paragraph?
qwueri 
21078 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Online
Posted 12/30/16
Because some news sources work in more editorializing into their reports than others, and opinions will vary.
runec 
36293 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/30/16

qwueri wrote:
Because some news sources work in more editorializing into their reports than others, and opinions will vary.


^ Pretty much.

21953 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 12/30/16

nanikore2 wrote:


runec wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:
Not only the content, the tone-setting of the pieces couldn't be more different:


The first is news and the second is opinion I think. The second one is "analysis" and lists 3 different authors(!) as well as a fourth reporter at the bottom.


Why didn't the LA piece simply started with Trump praising Putin's response (the bare news) instead of starting off emphasizing on the contrast between what he did earlier, both in the title as well as the opening paragraph?


This is what happens when 6 mega corporations own over 80% of the media. They stop being news and start being propaganda outlets.


Its sad... I don't want your analysis I just want the facts and what was said. I can analyze it myself.
1886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Shanghai China
Offline
Posted 12/30/16
This is why I don't watch the news that and its all blocked in china for some reason so I could care less what happens. Basically if it doesn't affect me I don't care even if it does I still wouldn't care.
33254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 12/30/16

Rujikin wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


runec wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:
Not only the content, the tone-setting of the pieces couldn't be more different:


The first is news and the second is opinion I think. The second one is "analysis" and lists 3 different authors(!) as well as a fourth reporter at the bottom.


Why didn't the LA piece simply started with Trump praising Putin's response (the bare news) instead of starting off emphasizing on the contrast between what he did earlier, both in the title as well as the opening paragraph?


This is what happens when 6 mega corporations own over 80% of the media. They stop being news and start being propaganda outlets.


Its sad... I don't want your analysis I just want the facts and what was said. I can analyze it myself.


Adjectives like "effusive" made me go "oy".
2418 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 12/30/16
Context and narratives. To the extent that facts even exist, they're subject to the makeup and whims of their purveyors. All of it has always been "strings of opinion buried in subtext," because nothing else exists. Why do we choose to report the "facts" we report on? Why does someone even bother to do the research to determine those "facts"? Context. Every choice made in the newsroom is the product of some kind of bias or opinion constructed by history and the surrounding environment.
33254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 12/31/16 , edited 12/31/16

auroraloose wrote:

Context and narratives. To the extent that facts even exist, they're subject to the makeup and whims of their purveyors. All of it has always been "strings of opinion buried in subtext," because nothing else exists. Why do we choose to report the "facts" we report on? Why does someone even bother to do the research to determine those "facts"? Context. Every choice made in the newsroom is the product of some kind of bias or opinion constructed by history and the surrounding environment.


Straight up facts are boring, and boring stuff don't sell.

Imagine a news show with all the debate guests being moderates. Yawn. Extremists get all the airtime because they incite more attention and sales. Brash headlines get clicks. Sensational adjectives get a bigger comments section.

Extreme example comin' right up...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/for-the-new-yellow-journalists-opportunity-comes-in-clicks-and-bucks/2016/11/20/d58d036c-adbf-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html
You must be logged in to post.