"Critics say" is awfully close to Trump's constant claim that "people tell me I'm doing a great job." Trump is like a child with imaginary friends, so reporters should take care to specify critics if, in fact, their attribution is necessary when stating the obvious. Another journalistic failure is the use of the word "reportedly" to avoid taking full responsibility for a statement. If you are writing it, you are reporting it! Duh.
This slippery or sloppy use of language is another reason I stopped subscribing to The Washington Post and did not replace it with The New York Times.
I did not allow such sloppy writing as "critics say" in the freshman college composition courses I taught. I specified that writers must say who those critics are. I also asked students to be specific and to back up arguments with facts.
It bothers me when I read something like 'Democrats criticize Trump's plan to deport American citizens' or 'Democrats say lack of due process is unconstitutional.' NO! ALL decent people cry out against injustice. When they say 'Democrats say' - they make it political, when it's not political, it's (un)constitutional - what Trump's doing is also immoral. Let's just say it that way.
They're afraid to state facts, and they hide behind anonymous sources. Yes, sometimes the latter is justified, e.g., when the source is a whistleblower whose story is corroborated by others. Other times it most definitely isn't, as with all the alleged White House staffers who a year ago were anonymously questioning President Biden's fitness and mental health.
And don't get me started about "claim"! It usually sounds defensive and slyly suggests that the statement isn't true.
I don't think it even qualifies as a type of journalism. It's cowardly clerk reporting - and it's definitely not being done to inform the public. It done in service to another audience all together.
Robert Reich offered a good example today of this refusal to state the obvious:
“Words matter. When the media points out Trump’s “potential conflicts of interest,” as it has in recent days when describing Trump’s growing crypto enterprise, it doesn’t come close to telling the public what’s really going on — unprecedented paybacks and self-dealing by the president of the United States, using his office to make billions.
"Critics say" is awfully close to Trump's constant claim that "people tell me I'm doing a great job." Trump is like a child with imaginary friends, so reporters should take care to specify critics if, in fact, their attribution is necessary when stating the obvious. Another journalistic failure is the use of the word "reportedly" to avoid taking full responsibility for a statement. If you are writing it, you are reporting it! Duh.
This slippery or sloppy use of language is another reason I stopped subscribing to The Washington Post and did not replace it with The New York Times.
I did not allow such sloppy writing as "critics say" in the freshman college composition courses I taught. I specified that writers must say who those critics are. I also asked students to be specific and to back up arguments with facts.
It bothers me when I read something like 'Democrats criticize Trump's plan to deport American citizens' or 'Democrats say lack of due process is unconstitutional.' NO! ALL decent people cry out against injustice. When they say 'Democrats say' - they make it political, when it's not political, it's (un)constitutional - what Trump's doing is also immoral. Let's just say it that way.
Exactly!
They're afraid to state facts, and they hide behind anonymous sources. Yes, sometimes the latter is justified, e.g., when the source is a whistleblower whose story is corroborated by others. Other times it most definitely isn't, as with all the alleged White House staffers who a year ago were anonymously questioning President Biden's fitness and mental health.
And don't get me started about "claim"! It usually sounds defensive and slyly suggests that the statement isn't true.
Yes , instead of stating things as facts they skirt the issue. I was going to write. "They seem to skirt the issue"
Thank you Marc Jacob’s, for cutting to the chase.
This has been a pet peeve of mine for years!
https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2016/01/06/the-view-from-nowhere-in-iowa-legislative-news-coverage/
I don't think it even qualifies as a type of journalism. It's cowardly clerk reporting - and it's definitely not being done to inform the public. It done in service to another audience all together.
As always, you are absolutely on point
My fervent wish!!
Things I wish would happen:
Excellent way for a media persona to phrase next question!
Media:
1:”Sir, some worry you are displaying symptoms of Dementia for example: memory loss. What is your response?”
2: “Do you believe you must protect and uphold our Constitution?”
3/ Trump: “I don’t know.”
Play clip of him reciting the oath of office:⬇️
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAJb7uTcgAw&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD
Excellent point.
Critics have names, easily found, unlike the avalanche of unnamed sources journalists use today. The first is fine, the latter bad journalism.
This shit is like Trump: "People are saying (insert lie here)!!!!" But with him it's the tiny people in his head.
Robert Reich offered a good example today of this refusal to state the obvious:
“Words matter. When the media points out Trump’s “potential conflicts of interest,” as it has in recent days when describing Trump’s growing crypto enterprise, it doesn’t come close to telling the public what’s really going on — unprecedented paybacks and self-dealing by the president of the United States, using his office to make billions.
The correct word is corruption.”
Couldn’t agree more! Why are they so afraid to state facts as facts?