Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...

Thursday, 9 April 2015

Speaking of words, and media and my computer's reaction to Patheos....

About the last named I spoke too soon. It's teaching my computer a tarantella or fandango or something.
About the second, CNN was the source cited by Fr Longenecker.
And about the first --

When does a news source, in describing a law, decide to use the phrase, "what it describes as"?

Would you describe those as words as "neutral"?

A writer has all kinds of nearly legitimate ways to slant what purports to be straight news rather than editorial.
Some, like "allegedly" may simply be for self-protection - or they may be expressly to cast doubt on what they have never the less chosen to report.

Headlines that are questions, are an oldie but goodie.

Deciding which of two sides gets the last word is one of the most effective yet unimpeachable, after all, someone has to get the last word, right?

Oh, well...
I suppose "what the law describes as" isn't as bad as, say.... "what the law laughably refers to as."

Yeah. CNN isn't taking sides here.

No comments: