• jopepa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    News is supposed to tell you what happened not how to feel about it. When you notice an article is using a lot of emotionally charged language, that’s a good sign to check the facts (if there are any)

    • zephyreks@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You might as well only read news wires like Reuters and AP, then.

      Context matters, emotions matter, selective reporting is rampant, and all journalism writes to their audience. It’s usually more accurate to read articles from both sides of an issue and assume that both are wrong, with the truth often somewhere in the middle. On a geopolitical scale, it’s also good to assume rational actors (because, far more often than not, they are rational even if you don’t have the context that rationalizes an action).

    • Synapse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Realistically, any piece of information is reported from a point of view. It is published following an editorial line, tinted by an opinon or an alter motive. This is why you should always consider the source of the information and if you really need to know, crosscheck with multiple independant sources.

      • jopepa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It kind of sounds like you’re mistrusting of journalist in general. I don’t think journalists are the problem though, columnists maybe, and publishers definitely. There is the big difference between calling a LGBT bookreading a hellscape and calling a war zone a hellscape. Some news tells you what is; others chew it, digest it, and put sprinkles on the soft serve for you.

        • Synapse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t distrust journalists. I think it’s always important to consider who I am reading or hearing from, to take this fact into consideration as well in order to make my judgement. There are as many ways to report a fact as there are hands to write about it, the choice of words has an influence, as you pointed out with your example. We can trust reputable sources with more confidence, but non the less, I don’t think it’s ever as simple as reporting “what is”. E.g: “a cat got run over by a car” vs “a man killed a cat with his car” just reporting a fact, very different feeling.

          • jopepa@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Cool, same book, same page. I’ve just seen a lot of journalists get demonized because of the misinformation surge and that sucks because we need more of them more than ever.

            • Synapse@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              We desperatly need more good journalists and more truly independent media. In this day in age we expect a lot for free, but I am glad to pay for newspaper subscription and for public radio/tv.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      If an article has any emotional charge at all it’s automatically not factual