My impression is that they do report on things that actually occurred, and often things that other sources don’t discuss — but they insist on adding a lot of opinion-based interpretation and conclusion-jumping to their articles. This weakens them as a news source even if it makes for entertaining reading sometimes.
For instance, the linked article would be better if it didn’t contain things like this:
Instead, his message, particularly his emphasis on encouraging people to “think twice” before making plans to visit Florida, could be interpreted as a veiled threat to those with opposing ideas.
“Could be interpreted”; “veiled threat” — that’s not news writing. News writing should tell you what happened, and refrain from instructing you in how to feel about it.
Specifically when reporting on the words and deeds of fascists, it’s unnecessary to add the equivalent of “… and that was scary and evil!” to the end of every sentence. Sure, fascists are scary and their plans are evil; but all you have to do to convey that is tell the truth about what they’re up to.
It’s kinda like how an encyclopedia article about Hitler should not begin, “Adolf Hitler was an evil evil man.” Merely reporting accurately on his deeds will lead the reader to that conclusion already.
undefined> “Could be interpreted”; “veiled threat” — that’s not news writing.
“Could be interpreted”; “veiled threat” — that’s not news writing.
It’s not news reporting, but it is news analysis, which is entirely valid and practiced at all mainstream media (and hard-right) publications as well. I agree that Truthout can sometimes be a bit melodramatic about it though.
My impression is that they do report on things that actually occurred, and often things that other sources don’t discuss — but they insist on adding a lot of opinion-based interpretation and conclusion-jumping to their articles. This weakens them as a news source even if it makes for entertaining reading sometimes.
For instance, the linked article would be better if it didn’t contain things like this:
“Could be interpreted”; “veiled threat” — that’s not news writing. News writing should tell you what happened, and refrain from instructing you in how to feel about it.
Specifically when reporting on the words and deeds of fascists, it’s unnecessary to add the equivalent of “… and that was scary and evil!” to the end of every sentence. Sure, fascists are scary and their plans are evil; but all you have to do to convey that is tell the truth about what they’re up to.
It’s kinda like how an encyclopedia article about Hitler should not begin, “Adolf Hitler was an evil evil man.” Merely reporting accurately on his deeds will lead the reader to that conclusion already.
undefined> “Could be interpreted”; “veiled threat” — that’s not news writing.
It’s not news reporting, but it is news analysis, which is entirely valid and practiced at all mainstream media (and hard-right) publications as well. I agree that Truthout can sometimes be a bit melodramatic about it though.