It always cracks me up when I read about the Los Angeles Times "subtle and inadvertent" bias. Especially when it comes to the usual suspects:
The technique is, of course, neither "subtle" (not inasmuch as the above reporters are concerned), nor "inadvertent."
There is a name for it:
And apparently it's considered good journalism at the LA Times---I wonder whether they learn it in school? Notice how Peter Nicholas and Janet Hook didn't say that "Obama's plan" was a "costly plan." That would've been incorrect. Some would call it a lie.
What they said instead is that "Obama's plan" could be a tough sell "with lawmakers skeptical of sweeping and costly plans to revamp healthcare."
See the difference?
Here is another more recent example from today's edition of the LA Times from an article by Peter Nicholas and Richard A. Serrano: Mosque dispute takes Obama off-message on Gulf Coast. The whole article is a study in propaganda techniques; it should be required reading in any High School level class on propaganda.
I'll only focus on the last paragraph:
Notice how the reporter doesn't say that Obama speaking of "the mosque" is "a gaffe." Nor does he say that it is a "gaffe" on par with another remark (yet another presidential "gaffe" are we to assume?) that Obama made more than one year ago about the Cambridge arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr.
No, the author would never say anything like that. What he said instead is:
I don't know, everything is relative. So maybe it could be considered "subtle" by Fox News standards.
The technique is the same though.
Think they all go to the same school?
0 drinks at this table:
Post a Comment