Posted on 01/07/2006 7:55:02 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Linked article has sparse details, does not speculate upon a motive or how the teenager charged came to be under suspicion for planting the mercury.
There used to be a maxim in the press to get the "what, who, where, when, why and how" of the story. They don't follow those principles anymore. What we get is a bunch of slop that a sixth grader could write.
...sounds, about right, for at least 25 years, thanks to the NEA that taught them. the parents are too tired...busy working/paying taxes.
I worked on my school newspaper. The five Ws were the first things we learned.
Curiously enough, we used the New York Times as a model, because back then they set the professional standards. The Five Ws in the first paragraph. The most important names and facts up front. The article written so all the important stuff was as near the top as possible, so an editor could chop the column wherever he chose, to make room for something else, and be sure that the least important stuff had been cut.
Now the guidelines are political. Put the agenda in the first paragraph. Demonize the Republicans and conceal the sins of Democrats. If it's positive, put the Democrat names on top and conceal the REpublicans. If it's negative, vice versa.
If you're covering up a clinton scandal, put it below the fold or on a back page, and at least make sure that all the dynamite is in the part of the story continued in back. If you're inventing a Bush scandal, get all the dirt and the sleaze in the headline and the opening paragraph.
This one is not a political story, but once you learn those sorts of habits, it carries over into everything else. Invent, obscure, ignore the facts, and don't bother with the spell checker.
Journalists still do, but mostly to get their left wing templates on how to report the news.
The Times has always been left-wing, and the Duranty story was one of their sleaziest.
But they were, at least, professionals in those days. They had strict copyeditors and editors, they had well trained writers. The prose may have been a little boring, but it was never jivy or hormone-ridden.
Things are very different now. One of the worst things about someone like Maureen Dowd is her truly horrible style. The editors at the Times never would have put up with such junky writing in the past, never mind the fact that she never leaves the office or researches her columns before writing them.
The Times may have been dishonest and biased back then, but at least it lied with style and professional competence.
I hear Ya.
The LMSM reporters are treated so much like "Hollywood Stars" and what, "About the truth **crickets**so much..for a free / unfettered Press"
...Liberalism, is a DEAD Free Press.
That's part of the problem: only four W's should be part of most news reports. Who, what, where and when are factual information. When you add why to the mix you have ventured off into the world of opinion, unless the "why" is supported by a fact.
Example: "The train wreck was caused by a section of broken track" vs. "The train wreck was caused by lack of track maintenance due to Bush's budget cuts", or " The train wreck was caused by lack of proper maintenance by negligent but union-protected workers".
You summed it up extremely well, Cicero.
You summed it up beautifully, thanks!
"Why" is a legitimate question, if handled right.
Police said the car went off the road because of the slippery conditions. Or because the driver was drunk. Or because he fell asleep. You do need that "police said" in there, because why is seldom certain.
Why did the young man kill his parents? Or, to take another example, why are the MSM slanting all their stories? Because they're lazy? Because they're leftists? Because their editors commanded them to? Because they are careerists and that's the best way to get ahead? Because they can? Maybe a little of all these factors? These are all speculative explanations, but unless you delve into "why," the story remains incomplete. You just need to phrase it carefully to separate the factual from the speculative or the expert testimony.
There again, there really are such things as experts. But you need to select them for their competence, not because they are in your rolodex and you know they'll give you the answers your agenda requires.
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.