Home » News vs. Editorials: Reading Critically

News vs. Editorials: Reading Critically

by Anthony Buckley

Generations of Americans have grown up thinking that newspapers, television news programs, and other forms of mainstream media tell them the truth and report in an unbiased manner on current events. But that isn’t the case. It never has been, and it’s getting worse. Through manipulation, obfuscation, and selective omission, the mainstream media crafts the narrative it wants people to believe. And millions of Americans buy it, hook, line, and sinker.

Some older journalists remember a time when their editors told them to refrain from editorialization in their articles. But those times are long past. And especially when President Trump is the subject, editorialization becomes the norm rather than the exception.

Take, for instance, this article published by the Associated Press over the weekend, entitled “Trump team requests recount of Georgia’s presidential race.

The very first sentence begins with an editorialization: “as his legal team presses forward with attacks alleging widespread fraud without proof.” How does the reporter know there is no proof? Has he read the entirety of the legal team’s court filings? Doubtful. Even if he had, that statement “without proof” is a blatant editorialization intended to get the reader to cast doubt on Trump’s case and to side against him.

Did you ever read an AP article that said “President Obama claimed without proof that if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it,” or that said “Nancy Pelosi claimed without giving proof that President Trump benefited from Russian collusion.” Of course not, because the mainstream media wants to push the Democratic narrative and punish President Trump. They’ll editorialize negatively against Trump, but not against Democrats.

The third sentence contains another editorialization: “an election that has been fraught with unfounded accusations of fraud by Trump and his supporters.” Unfounded? Has the reporter not seen the Project Veritas videos showing evidence of ballot harvesting? Is the writer not familiar with the statistical analysis that has shown that there was likely widespread fraud in the ballot count? Once again, we have an editorialization that attempts to set the tone for the article and get the reader to side against Trump from the outset.

We get more editorialization towards the end: “Trump has criticized the audit, calling it a ‘joke’ in a tweet that claimed without evidence that ‘thousands of fraudulent votes have been found.’” Because, you know, everyone else who tweets is able to provide full evidence to back their 140-character comments. Once again, the writer is taking advantage of the fact that a tweet by its very nature is incapable of providing full evidence to editorialize and bash Trump.

This was coming from a news service which is supposed to be at least somewhat neutral. If the editorialization problem is this bad at the AP, you know it’s worse at partisan outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times. Real journalism only exists in the alternative media at this point, and you have to look far and wide to find it among all the trash you’ll see in the mainstream media. But when you do, you’ll not only be better informed, you’ll also be able to see finally just how biased the mainstream media really is, and you’re almost guaranteed never to return to your old media consumption habits again.


You may also like