01-17-2017, 12:54 PM
(01-17-2017, 12:46 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:(01-17-2017, 12:17 PM)David Horn Wrote:(01-16-2017, 10:55 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: That was the point, it was posted in reportage, rewritten to become "analysis", and yet not moved to the commentary section where it belonged.
...
Yes, THAT is the function of the press. It's supposed to INFORM the public, not propagandize it. If you honestly think the role of the press in a free society is to tell people WHAT to think (in the "public interest", of course), than you might as well just nationalize all of it and call it "The Department of Truth".
Analysis occupies more space in a typical newspaper than straight reporting. Surprise! But let's agree that analysis is not commentary. There are few stories simple enough to be reported with no added context. Once you add context, you've added some analysis. As complex as the world is today, I don't see any alternative.
... which is hell-and-gone from the Ministry of Truth.
All I see is that you didn't bother to read the links and as such are continuing to talk out of your hat. Please, if you want to keep talking, actually read the thing, look at the side by side, and tell me how that counts as "analysis".
Time or past time for a quote, I think. The original version of your first link was a perfect example of just the facts in a case like, contrary to David, the vast majority of cases where no analysis is required. It was changed to something that is clearly not analysis - since the facts were removed, which wouldn't happen with analysis - and that could only charitably be considered even commentary. Propaganda would be a closer description.
But hey, that's why people read The New York Times - they don't want the facts about how the world actually is, they just want propaganda about what they would like the world to be like.