Here is a page out of “Anguished English” by Richard Lederer. It relates to headlines in newspapers, so I thought the fans of this thread would get a chuckle...
It's a news article, recounting what different people involved in the issue are saying (including Ms. Reade).
Ms. Mtierney says it "does a weak denial on a conclusion". What does that comment mean? Does Ms. Mtierney contend that the news article should have reached a conclusion, instead of just reporting the facts known and the positions taken?
given some of the new revelations of people confirming that Reade told them about this event when it allegedly happened or shortly thereafter, I'm inclined to believe that it did happen. But that's not good enough for a reputable news organization, to be "inclined" to believe it.
But it's beyond hypocritical for you to have been supporting a man with about two dozen credible accusations of sexual assault against him, and be concerned about this.
How is Biden going to get a #Metoo pass? NYT does a weak denial on a conclusion.
But it's beyond hypocritical for you to have been supporting a man with about two dozen credible accusations of sexual assault against him, and be concerned about this.
It’s all about objective reporting. Trump was raked over the coals when he was a candidate—there was no hear-say that was left unreported in news coverage, which bordered on the salacious for months on end, and continue to this day.
I think the press wants to protect, Biden, the only Democratic candidate left standing. This is partisan coverage in an attempt to support a really weak candidate with skeletons in the family closet.
On the other hand, the press loves any hint of wrong-doing by any member of the Trump family.
The answer to your question is: Trump (and Kavanaugh) can’t be fair game, while Biden gets a pass.
It’s all about objective reporting. Trump was raked over the coals when he was a candidate—there was no hear-say that was left unreported in news coverage, which bordered on the salacious for months on end, and continue to this day.
It’s all about objective reporting. Trump was raked over the coals when he was a candidate—there was no hear-say that was left unreported in news coverage, which bordered on the salacious for months on end, and continue to this day.
I think the press wants to protect, Biden, the only Democratic candidate left standing. This is partisan coverage in an attempt to support a really weak candidate with skeletons in the family closet.
On the other hand, the press loves any hint of wrong-doing by any member of the Trump family.
The answer to your question is: Trump (and Kavanaugh) can’t be fair game, while Biden gets a pass.
the fact that the press is reporting the Biden allegations at all without solid corroboration is about all they can do.
Trump was "raked over the coals" in your words because a video surfaced in which he bragged about committing sexual assaults. And his description of those assaults was identical to several of the allegations against him.
“This is why the whole concept of tests aren’t necessarily great,” the president said. “The tests are perfect, but something can happen between a test where it’s good and then something happens and all of a sudden” it is not.
Some experts said he has a point. “People need to understand the limitations of testing,” said Nellie Brown, the director of workplace health and safety programs at the Worker Institute at Cornell University, who is advising businesses on how to reopen safely. “When you take a test you’re basically getting a slice in time. You know what is happening at that moment, but you don’t know what may happen even soon after that.”
The first paragraph is where Trump shows he has not the slightest clue of what testing is for. He is terrifyingly ignorant.
Instead of pointing this out, the second paragraph attempts to excuse his idiocy.
Why do that? Is that being objective? They take a quote by a crazy man, and then try to normalize it.
“This is why the whole concept of tests aren’t necessarily great,” the president said. “The tests are perfect, but something can happen between a test where it’s good and then something happens and all of a sudden” it is not.
Some experts said he has a point. “People need to understand the limitations of testing,” said Nellie Brown, the director of workplace health and safety programs at the Worker Institute at Cornell University, who is advising businesses on how to reopen safely. “When you take a test you’re basically getting a slice in time. You know what is happening at that moment, but you don’t know what may happen even soon after that.”
The first paragraph is where Trump shows he has not the slightest clue of what testing is for. He is terrifyingly ignorant.
Instead of pointing this out, the second paragraph attempts to excuse his idiocy.
Why do that? Is that being objective? They take a quote by a crazy man, and then try to normalize it.
Evil.
yes, they got an expert to state the obvious, in support of Trump's straw man. As I wrote in another thread, the reason for testing is not for the people who test negative to assume they're safe and can't transmit the virus. It's to find people who test positive, and send them home to isolate until they test negative.
yeah, the thing is - the important thing - is that Trump fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of the one thing that all epidemiologists agree is the first step to getting the virus under control. His misunderstanding is probably preventing him from pushing for it. He just sees testing as something that will increase numbers that will make him look bad.
The Times should tell us that, and explain the importance of it.
Instead they make excuses for it, and completely neglect the important story.
Two-day-old reminder: F.D.A. Paves Way for Home Testing of Coronavirus (May 8) Fourth paragraph: “Access to tests has been improving, but nationwide testing shortages continue to hamper the ability of health authorities to identify and isolate people who are infected.”
Nevertheless, “people need to understand the limitations of testing.” Or so says some crank at Cornell.
Two-day-old reminder: F.D.A. Paves Way for Home Testing of Coronavirus (May 8) Fourth paragraph: “Access to tests has been improving, but nationwide testing shortages continue to hamper the ability of health authorities to identify and isolate people who are infected.”
Nevertheless, “people need to understand the limitations of testing.” Or so says some crank at Cornell.
Your point is what, exactly?
The issue is that we have an idiot President, who is utterly unfit to take leadership for this crisis. Talking about the mechanics of testing, and what the needs are is useless without talking about the fact that there is no chance of federal leadership in this area, because Trump doesn't understand it.
i.e. we need more testing, which the Feds will never help to provide, because of Trump. Can the states step in on their own?
That's the story. We need more and more testing, but the Prez is too damn dumb to understand why.
Where's that story?
And seriously, do you think that "people need to understand the limitations of testing" is the appropriate response to Trump's statement? It implies that he's making sense. Do you think he's making sense?
Also, who are these "people" who are misunderstanding testing? Has she taken a poll?
Anyway, it's Trump whose misunderstanding is at issue here. Not the "people", whoever they are. It's truly a craptastic quote, put in for no other reason than to "balance" Trump's obliviousness.
Also, it's kind of amusing to see how people buy into the Times as an authority.
And seriously, do you think that "people need to understand the limitations of testing" is the appropriate response to Trump's statement? It implies that he's making sense. Do you think he's making sense?
I’m not the sharpest guy around, so when I hear someone say you can be infected soon after a test, I think, yeah, that makes sense. Thankfully, when that thought strikes me, articles from The Times and other news outlets have given me a good response that I can recall. While this particular article didn’t provide that already familiar response, it did use Trump’s quote to raise another issue: That with all the talk about and emphasis on testing, it can be easy to overlook that it’s just one part of the necessary strategy and not a panacea. I appreciated that reminder.
Do you believe that normalization can be a bad thing?
Yes. I also believe that ideas about what normalizes Trump and his administration, and what doesn’t, will differ.
Personally, I wouldn’t want your or ideas to guide the news coverage I consume. When I think about things and form my opinions, I want to meet and grasp opposing views on their strongest, most sensible terms. You reject or dismiss the validity of a lot of views and other information that have merits and logic I want to consider. Coverage that followed your standards for avoiding normalization would hinder me.
in the last example, the writer didn't present an opposing view. The writer found "some" experts to confirm Trump's straw man. An opposing view might have been presented by finding experts on testing who pointed out that no one credible in the medical community is making the argument that Trump was criticizing. What the writer did was worse than providing an opposing view.
We're writing it. Let's hope we'll be able to rehearse and perform it next year.