OP are you an attorney? You analyze language like one. I find this stuff easy to pick out as well and my legal education is far more useful than my journalistic education in helping me pick this stuff apart. *congratulates self*
I led a session at a high school journalism conference about how the media botched the Al-Ahli hospital bombing in Nov. 2024 (NY Times even had to issue a correction for relying on unreliable information). One thing that's easy to notice is the use of passive voice - e.g., "3 killed in attack" removes the subject and encourages the reader to come to their own conclusion. I also notice that often the "other side" of the story comes out around the 10th paragraph/third column/jump page (if it's a print paper), way after most readers have decided to move on. For instance, in an article about Gaza on the brink of famine, toward the end the author might finally drop in Israel's claim that Hamas is stealing the aid. Finally, I am enraged at the liberal use of adverbs and adjectives in news stories, which leads readers toward emotions.
This is brilliant. I could have used this piece when I was teaching a writing unit on emotional and rational arguments.
I do think that Al Jazeera deserves credit for reporting on a story that cuts against the views of the majority of their readers, editors, and funders.
"And yet there’s a very obvious difference between “he said she slapped him” versus “she slapped him, he said”. The first prioritizes the accusation, while the latter prioritizes the conduct, even though in reality both claims are accusations. But those not paying close attention might inadvertently dismiss the first as hearsay and accept the second as factual. Sneaky."
So, by the same logic, the subhead of the article is also sneaky because it employs the same technique?
"Bus carrying more than two dozen Palestinians attacked by Hamas, organisation says."
Potentially. That's not such a clear comparison because the subhead doesn't use the same "Hamas attacked a bus..." construction, it instead frontloads with "Bus carrying...".
The comparison is further muddled with the headline using the opposite "X says Y happened" construction.
I wouldn't use any of these of examples of ill-intent, because the construction and direction of each clause is too varied to observe a distinct pattern.
OP are you an attorney? You analyze language like one. I find this stuff easy to pick out as well and my legal education is far more useful than my journalistic education in helping me pick this stuff apart. *congratulates self*
I don't think it's a coincidence that the Greeks of old considered rhetoric a tool for judicial as well as epistemological applications.
Yes, he is.
I led a session at a high school journalism conference about how the media botched the Al-Ahli hospital bombing in Nov. 2024 (NY Times even had to issue a correction for relying on unreliable information). One thing that's easy to notice is the use of passive voice - e.g., "3 killed in attack" removes the subject and encourages the reader to come to their own conclusion. I also notice that often the "other side" of the story comes out around the 10th paragraph/third column/jump page (if it's a print paper), way after most readers have decided to move on. For instance, in an article about Gaza on the brink of famine, toward the end the author might finally drop in Israel's claim that Hamas is stealing the aid. Finally, I am enraged at the liberal use of adverbs and adjectives in news stories, which leads readers toward emotions.
This is brilliant. I could have used this piece when I was teaching a writing unit on emotional and rational arguments.
I do think that Al Jazeera deserves credit for reporting on a story that cuts against the views of the majority of their readers, editors, and funders.
"And yet there’s a very obvious difference between “he said she slapped him” versus “she slapped him, he said”. The first prioritizes the accusation, while the latter prioritizes the conduct, even though in reality both claims are accusations. But those not paying close attention might inadvertently dismiss the first as hearsay and accept the second as factual. Sneaky."
So, by the same logic, the subhead of the article is also sneaky because it employs the same technique?
"Bus carrying more than two dozen Palestinians attacked by Hamas, organisation says."
Potentially. That's not such a clear comparison because the subhead doesn't use the same "Hamas attacked a bus..." construction, it instead frontloads with "Bus carrying...".
The comparison is further muddled with the headline using the opposite "X says Y happened" construction.
I wouldn't use any of these of examples of ill-intent, because the construction and direction of each clause is too varied to observe a distinct pattern.