Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Chacham's Journal: Opinion: News is opinion with a few extra facts. 14

Journal by Chacham

Is there even such thing as news anymore? What is the difference between news and opinion? Which gets more fanfare?

The difference between news and opinion is: opinion is theory with some facts; news is facts with some opinion. Sound good? Well, it isn't. While opinion can ignore other facts, news cannot. Unfortunately, it does. And that makes news nothing more than an opinion piece with a few facts added for good measure.

Just read news about bombings in Israel. The first noticeable thing is the term "Israeli warplanes". It's mentioned three times in the story: in the title, the second word of the story, and later on. Why it calls jets "Israeli warplanes" is simply opinion. It's an opinion to intentionally give bad connotations. They should reports facts, and leave out the opinion. There is also mention of how many women and children Israel killed indirectly (Twenty-five people were wounded, including three women and five children.), but no mention of how many women and children the Arabs killed *intentionally* (Dozens of bystanders were maimed and wounded.). They also failed to mention that candies were distributed by Arabs after the bombings. Something that would have been reported if the Israelis were accused of it.

I wish some news source would just report the facts. Have everybody's full quotes, have exact numbers. If broken down, break it down for everyone. And have links to the history as reported by facts.

Then, if someone wants to opine, they could, and reference the facts. The Associated Press would be really nice for that, because then other news providers could offer their own opinions based on facts. Instead, it's either the AP's opinion, or opinions based on their opinions.

Anyway, i happened to see it there. I am certain that no stories about anything are fully factual. So, i take news as opinion. And once i do that, i might as well read opinions that coincide with mine. There's no point in being objective, there simply aren't facts that everyone will agree to.

Perhaps that's why opinion pieces come with such fanfare. Although non-factual, they (usually) do not hide their agenda, and as such, are the most factual things out there.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Opinion: News is opinion with a few extra facts.

Comments Filter:
  • The idea of "objectivity" in news reporting has gotten twisted around to mean the reporters deny their own biases rather than acknowledging them (which would encourage them to be more fair to other viewpoints).
    • The idea of "objectivity" in news reporting has gotten twisted around to mean the reporters deny their own biases rather than acknowledging them (which would encourage them to be more fair to other viewpoints).

      Yep; the BBC seem particularly bad at this. Funded by a c. $4bn/yr tax on TV ownership in the UK, and completely unaccountable to anyone except the government (and that only to a very limited extent), they seem to believe this makes them completely impartial - rather than completely unaccountable a

      • he US would probably have executed him for espionage or treason

        When lives are in danger, yes. When not, the US gives relatively light sentences. Which is why the Jonathon Pollard [jonathanpollard.org] case is so out of hand. Check out the Comparative Sentences [jonathanpollard.org] sections.
        • When lives are in danger, yes. When not, the US gives relatively light sentences. Which is why the Jonathon Pollard case is so out of hand. Check out the Comparative Sentences sections.

          The first name to spring to mind for me was "Rosenberg", given the subject matter. In the Pollard case, I'm not convinced a life sentence was inappropriate - many of their "Comparative Sentences" entries aren't very comparative. (The sole "Great Britain" entry had nothing to do with the UK, for example: he leaked some milit

          • Rosenberg was an extreme case of giving help to an enemy about something they are both going for.

            As for the rest, it's subjective, so i'll just accewpt that you don't agree. I disagree with you, but i doubt talking about it will matter.
            • Rosenberg was an extreme case of giving help to an enemy about something they are both going for.

              I'd argue the Israeli guy who leaked Israeli nuclear secrets to the press did something similar; apart from anything else, when the information was published globally, only a very dim enemy could have missed it! Presumably the Israeli government felt the same way, from his current location (prison)...

              As for the rest, it's subjective, so i'll just accewpt that you don't agree. I disagree with you, but i doubt

              • What does America get in return - ICQ and an astronaut? This doesn't seem like a very balanced arrangement to me.

                First of all, allies are based on agreements, not actions. Unless those actions go opposite either country.

                Anyway, Israel does quite a bit. First there is the business aspect. There are many US companies in Israel. For example, the Intel fabrication plant that made the Pentium. There are agreements that remove tariffs and the like. Then there's Israel agreeing to the US vote in the General Ass
                • If anything, i'd wonder why the US considers Saudi Arabia an ally.

                  Hardly a good ally in the way that the UK and Autralia are, but at least it provides useful support (basing rights). It also manages to avoid embarassing the US in the way Israel does multiple times a year, and has strong trade links (without demanding massive bribes in exchange).

                  There are many US companies in Israel. For example, the Intel fabrication plant that made the Pentium.

                  Ditto the PRC...

                  There are agreements that remove tarif

                  • Re:"Objectivity" (Score:2, Interesting)

                    by Chacham (981) *
                    but at least it provides useful support (basing rights)...It also manages to avoid embarassing the US

                    Actually, it embarrasses the US quite a bit. You just don't hear about it too often. You only hear about it with Israel because Reuters and CNN have a blatantly anti-Israel bias and will report anything to embarrass her, and the AP isn't to helpful either. Do you have any idea how many children were kidnapped by a Saudi Arabian parent, and Saudi Arabia basically laughs at the US when asked to return them?
                    • Actually, it embarrasses the US quite a bit. You just don't hear about it too often. You only hear about it with Israel because Reuters and CNN have a blatantly anti-Israel bias and will report anything to embarrass her, and the AP isn't to helpful either. Do you have any idea how many children were kidnapped by a Saudi Arabian parent, and Saudi Arabia basically laughs at the US when asked to return them? If the news agencies would promote those stories, you'd see how awful Saudi Arabia is.

                      Oh, Saudi's a l

                    • None of which justifies the massive amounts of aid;

                      Noone said it did. That was talking about allies. Aid is giving for completely different reasons.

                      indeed, given the balance of trade between the US and Israel (massively skewed in Israel's favor), Israel would be by far the bigger loser if that trade were threatened.

                      Probably, because she is so small. The US is able to diversify, so the few companies that would be hit hard by a non-agreement (intel, some pharmoseudicals (deal with Teva), and other indus
    • I don't know where you live but you may be able to find a news/talk radio station that has a bit more objectivity than we have come to expect. Now with news/talk radio you get a huge slant in most of the shows but I find that the top and bottom of the hour news reports are usually without too much slant. As for news on television, that's a wasteland - it's all opinion + news, no separation whatsoever.
  • you're absolutely right about news not being factual.

    the problem is that news agencies exist to make money. people (by this i mean the population at large) don't listen to facts. they listen to what other people think about the facts. interpretation of facts is what makes them important, but it also takes effort that most people don't want to put into it. so they listen to news full of opinions. so news agencies create more of what sells their product.
  • The Problem (Score:2, Insightful)

    by True Freak (57805)
    The problem is that you are not looking at the real issue...the real issue is the real problem...wich is that oppinion is just news with less facts...and more duplicate letters.

"Never ascribe to malice that which is caused by greed and ignorance." -- Cal Keegan

Working...