Consider this headline: “Experts SLAM Napoleon’s catastrophic tactical blunder cost French Empire the Battle of Waterloo.”
What information does this convey? On the surface, it’s about Napoleon’s military decision-making. But compress it to its essentials using subject-sentiment analysis: Napoleon + negative.
That’s the real message. The article signals: “High-status experts think negatively about Napoleon.” Whether Napoleon actually made a tactical error, whether that error was decisive, whether the analysis is sound—these questions matter less than the basic frame being established.
The typical explanation for this headline pattern is that journalistic norms of objectivity explicitly preclude them from e.g. weighing in on “Whether Napoleon actually made a tactical error,” whether experts’ analysis is sound. They aren’t military strategists, they’re journalists!
Do you dispute this explanation, and think it runs cover for manipulation of public opinion?
Do you think “Napoleon makes catastrophic tactical blunder, costing French Empire the Battle of Waterloo” is a better public discourse norm?
I see quoting experts as a trick that allows subjectivity under a fake pretense of objectivity, because you can always find experts who agree with any opinion, and quoting the ones you want to promote is the trick. In this sense, saying directly, “Napoleon committed a mistake,” is more honest because it’s subjective and doesn’t pretend to be objective.
My main point is that every type of speech involves creating selective focus, and selective focus is always subjective. So the entire idea of objective reporting is nonsense.
Regarding what the best norms are in general, it’s tricky and complex. I do agree that some reporting can be more deceiving, less factual, or whatever than other reporting, but it’s all very context-dependent and complex, and it cannot be captured by simplistic rules.
The typical explanation for this headline pattern is that journalistic norms of objectivity explicitly preclude them from e.g. weighing in on “Whether Napoleon actually made a tactical error,” whether experts’ analysis is sound. They aren’t military strategists, they’re journalists!
Do you dispute this explanation, and think it runs cover for manipulation of public opinion?
Do you think “Napoleon makes catastrophic tactical blunder, costing French Empire the Battle of Waterloo” is a better public discourse norm?
I see quoting experts as a trick that allows subjectivity under a fake pretense of objectivity, because you can always find experts who agree with any opinion, and quoting the ones you want to promote is the trick. In this sense, saying directly, “Napoleon committed a mistake,” is more honest because it’s subjective and doesn’t pretend to be objective.
My main point is that every type of speech involves creating selective focus, and selective focus is always subjective. So the entire idea of objective reporting is nonsense.
Regarding what the best norms are in general, it’s tricky and complex. I do agree that some reporting can be more deceiving, less factual, or whatever than other reporting, but it’s all very context-dependent and complex, and it cannot be captured by simplistic rules.