Comment by hnarn
5 days ago
Do you understand what the word ”hypocrisy” means? This is textbook responsible journalism in a scenario where ”common sense” is not yet verified.
5 days ago
Do you understand what the word ”hypocrisy” means? This is textbook responsible journalism in a scenario where ”common sense” is not yet verified.
edit: this comment made before two threads were consolidated. Original thread titled "Explosions reported in Venezuelan capital Caracas"
While I agree that "hypocrisy" isn't the right word here, I see where OP is coming from.
At least in American media, the use of passive voice (or as I've heard it called sometimes "exonerative voice") often obfuscates or otherwise provides cover for authorities. For example, "Tower collapses after missile strike" and "Man dies after being struck by bullet during arrest" are both technically true and yet also leave out important context (the country who fired the missile, the person who fired the gun and why).
Even if this headline is appropriate for now, it's not surprising that there should be questions over how it's worded.
It mainstream media, it's not about providing cover or obfuscating.
It's simply about not claiming causality where it hasn't been confirmed.
They teach you this stuff in journalism school. Once it gets confirmed, the new articles describe it causally, explaining the attribution.
The only goal here is accuracy. It's standard journalistic practice.
(I'm not talking about ideological publications.)
It's not textbook responsible when it's consistently and predictably done for only one side of every conflict.
That's like if a waiter gives the appropriate amount of attention to the tables with white guests and disregards tables with minority guests. You can't clutch your pearls and say that it isn't hypocrisy to notice that the waiter treats a given table correctly.
Yes they know what "hypocrisy" means. It is the hypocrisy of western media of jumping to say "evil country X bombed/invaded country Y" when it's a non-western country doing something (not that I'm justifying any country bombing/invading another) but when it's done by a country like the US the report is just "wow these buildings in Caracas just popped, crazy huh?"
You’re hand-waving, not stating causality when it has not been confirmed is basic journalism and is standard practice in all serious media outlets regardless of what parties are involved.
Actually you are hand-waving. Look at the original post, it says "Notice the hypocrisy of the "explosions reported" title instead of "US bombs Venezuela".". It is referencing the usage of passive voice and the lack of mention to the actor that did the reported act, it is not referencing the absence of casualty at all. So you are just straw manning and criticizing an argument that neither the OP nor myself defended at any point of the conversation.
One would have to completely ignore the context of the last few months to not make a link in causality with basic inference.
These are the same "serious media outlets" that repeat that same context in their articles over and over again as if readers haven't come anywhere near a news source in over a year.
It's like they are back in school trying to hit that arbitrary 500 word requirement when it's entirely unnecessary. Modern journalism is neither serious nor rigorous.