Red Pill Pundit ®
#TheFeed Breaking Culture Breaking Politics The Federalist

Implications Of The New York Times’ Headline Swap | The Federalist

 

 

“Readers, of course, don’t need journalists to spoon-feed them those answers. The left just doesn’t like the conclusions some readers have drawn.”

 

Reported Earlier by Emily Jashinsky | The Federalist

When The New York Times changed its front-page headline on the president’s Tuesday address from “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” to “Assailing Hate but Not Guns,” the paper made an important concession. Factual coverage is insufficient without framing to “contextualize” it.

Obviously even the most objective outlets frame and contextualize facts every day. Both headlines were factual. Trump urged unity versus racism. Indeed, he assailed hate but not guns. Yet the framing of the second presupposes a viewpoint that assailing guns was necessarily relevant. (Fair enough, but a viewpoint nonetheless.)

It is clearly less favorable for the president. It was also changed only after the Times received a deluge of liberal complaints on Twitter. “Contextualize,” as the Times believes it failed to do, is a euphemism for “inject anti-Trump opinion.” That’s not a stretch, it’s actually the argument critics peddled.

Here’s Jack Shafer in Politico: “Read or listen to Trump’s speech. He literally condemned racism and called for unity! While it’s fair to ask whether Trump was sincere in damning bigotry and white supremacy, there’s only so much work you can expect a headline to do in such a small space.”

In the Trump era, it’s no longer enough for news outlets to present facts, liberal media critics believe it’s the job of the press to answer the questions those facts raise. For instance, “Was the president sincere?” Readers, of course, don’t need journalists to spoon-feed them those answers. The left just doesn’t like the conclusions some readers have drawn.

 

Read More/Source: The Federalist

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Comment