They worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true.
In general, the Times sets its documentation of falsehoods in articles apart from its primary coverage. If the newspaper’s overarching goal is truth, oughtn’t the truth be embedded in its principal stories?
“The president has never used the word ‘apologize’ in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president’s words.”
Senator Grinderbinder gave a speech today in which is said, "The [estate tax] should be repealed immediately"?
Two examples I'd cite are terms like "partial birth abortion" and "death tax" -- loaded and factually inaccurate terms that contain a calculated emotional punch and, through constant repetition, have unfortunately become accepted elements of our public discourse.
There's no reason at all a newspaper reporter, at least, has to agree to be used as a vehicle for conveying and amplifying terms like these. He or she could refuse to run any quote that contains such doublespeak, if necessary substituting more neutral language.
« Older Sometimes state quarters know you only invited the... | Two months after being kicked ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt