I forget, is it basically a government call these days whether news refers to an incident (what was that daycare workplace shooting in California a year or two back) as “terrorism”? On the grounds that it’s a crime and if the government is going to charge with that crime, then they call the incident “terrorism”, otherwise not?
Isn’t that the source of the endless Republican complaint that liberals in general and Obama in particular would not call something “terror”? There was some speech where Obama did use the word, but not at first or something, and Republican spun that so much that Romney actually thought Obama had never used it and Candy Crowley had to correct him on-air - getting herself then called a Democratic partisan.
I think a comparison of how required it is or not to say “terrorist” and “racist” would be valuable.
I’m trying to think how an impartial government department decision could relieve everybody of the responsibility to decide whether something is “racism” or not. Tricky.
Saying “others say his comments are racist” instead of “his comments are racist” has nothing to do with being neutral. It’s about being cowardly and disingenuous.
Journalists used to claim to be authorities; saying that they examined the matter, and this is their professional opinion. Now most news claims no authority or responsibility for their statements, whether factual or opinion. If the views of vague anonymous sources are more reliable that those of the news broadcast, there is no reason for anyone to listen to the “news”.
“Excuse me? Police? Hi. There appears to be a stabbing in progress. I think I’m the victim. I think it’s a man, 5-foot-3, wearing a mask. But I’m not sure I want to burden you with my subjective experience! Come quickly!”
How much you wanna bet that when the TSA asks these people if they have a weapon in their bag, they don’t spend a lot of time arguing, “well… anything could be a weapon.” Nope. Subjectivity seems to be very adequate for people when the rubber hits the road. Good thing racism isn’t actually important.
And when someone does this many, many times over years, I think the evidence points to the man being a racist. A racist is someone with racist viewpoints, and if someone is going to voluntarily provide evidence over a long period of time that they have racist viewpoints, then it is factual to call them a racist.
I don’t see how this is any different than calling someone a Cowboys fan, from evidence of them cheering for the Cowboys at football games, with it being a factual statement.
“…lay off racist Iowa Rep. Steve King” This led me to wonder whether he worked for NBC News so that they could lay him off, but then I guess it can be read with a different meaning.
I think the distinction that needs to be made is news vs editorial. Each has it’s own set of ethics and standards. News is supposed to be neutral. i.e. “Alleged gunman.” It can sound weird or boring, but is trying to maintain objectivity even if something is damn near obvious. It has strong 1st amendment protect as “press” with “free speech” as a fallback position. Editorial tries to interpret the news. Different standards and protections. It’s why a lot of news organizations have them as different departments.
The two have been blurring more and more to the detriment of journalism. I’m fine with them being reminded to stay in their lanes. Facts matter and news reporting is its most powerful when it’s unimpeachable.
But saying “People say …” is disguising personal opinions as reporting.
“[Named person who matters] says …” is reporting. The only difference between saying something yourself and saying “Some people say” is the fake veneer of neutrality. Its not more neutral or more factual, just less genuine
Well now, can’t use that word; it would offend all the audience members who are white nationalists, white supremacists, white separatists, and those who constantly JAQ off about ethnostates being a good thing. /s
I worked in the business years ago, and this kind of edict wouldn’t have been issued by standards and practises or by management. Disgusting.
“On what some people are calling yesterday, an alleged ‘dentist’ was said to perform what many people in the community have termed ‘a root canal’ on a person that is often described as ‘our mayor’. A lot of people say so-called ‘dentistry’ is on the rise although many people have claimed no knowledge of it personally, or thought it sounded like the kind of thing that would only happen in another town.”
Actually the more I think about it the more I agree with my initial reactions. I don’t see how this makes them more factual, if anything it opens the door for lies and rumors. What are things that can’t be stated with any certainty? Lies and rumors mostly. Espousing racist ideology makes you a racist just like accepting and following the teachings of Jesus makes you Christian.
“Reports of what some are calling an outbreak of infectious disease are rumored by the CDC to have caused fifteen deaths however we don’t know that it wasn’t aliens! Back at 11 with what might be the weather, depending on how much you believe in the weather, or how you feel about the weather… your opinion is as good as anyone else’s. We don’t know anything, we just talk about whatever is trending on twitter… knowing things is impossible… we think.”
