This article by WAPO is in the news/politics section of the MSN news section. Yet its clearly an opinion. Well...WAPO calls it an analysis. But really it's just an opinion. LINK:Gordon Sondland is about to blow a hole in Trump's Ukraine defense[/quote] So...why is an opinion piece in the news/politics section of the MSN? THIS is one of the many reasons why the media is so low in over all ratings. When they portray opinion as "news" is it really any wonder why they are considered as "fake news"?
The media has no shame. I can tell you first hand from years of experience the majority of "journalists" are arrogant, opinionated, liberal, and their only associations/relationships are with other journalists. Don't be fooled by their nice hair, beautiful smile, friendly manner, thoughtful speech, that they exhibited on TV. In person they won't give you the time of the day and will never listen to any opinion you have.
I can believe that entirely . The act like know it alls set on one narrative that never changes. Anti American!
MSN seems to have actual opinion pieces under it’s generic “News” section – it even has its own sub-section. This “Analysis” label the Washington Post is using seems to be a bit of a news/opinion cross-over (“Interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data, as well as anticipating how events might unfold based on past events”). I don’t see anything especially unusual, misleading or controversial about any of the labelling here. It’s only really going to be a problem for the kind of people who skim-read headlines to react to rather than reading the articles properly, but they’re a problem regardless of how things are labelled and structured.
Have you noticed that nobody but trump, his dog pound and FOX news have shame. When you consider that's out of the entire f***ing world that's incredible. Anyone who wasn't brainwashed might see a pattern there!! p.s. I forgot about Putin, Kim and a few other deplorables.
Isn't it IRONIC that the BLOTUS's own lawyer was the one responsible for the impeachment inquiry? https://www.politicususa.com/2019/10/12/giuliani-trump-directed-ukraine.html But rather than deal with something of substance like the above the BLOTUS supporters just want to whine about the MSM for ACCURATELY reporting the BLOTUS's crimes. Same old, same old!
So...why is an opinion piece in the news/politics section of the MSN? THIS is one of the many reasons why the media is so low in over all ratings. When they portray opinion as "news" is it really any wonder why they are considered as "fake news"?[/QUOTE] If the WaPo possesses or has multiple sources to EU Ambassador’s opening statement or general testimony than it would an analysis rather than opinion. If Trump sites the E.U.Ambassador’s text as proof there wasn’t a quid pro quo and the E.U. Ambassador testifies the text was not his independent verification but rather was merely him repeating what he was told by the President. Then the President’s representation of the text was...? It’s not like he wasn’t aware of origin or oranges, if you prefer, of the ambassador’s claim in the text. So yeah, the ambassador is about to blow up the President’s defense but sure, the problem here is the WaPo. That’s the ticket!
1. The article appeared in the WaPo as "analysis" not a news story. 2. Kindly refute any of the facts mentioned in the article.
Its also a problem for those that only get their news from one news source even though they read through the whole articles. Those are the ones that generally at least TRY to stay up with current events but may lack the time to do so properly. And frankly, that's most of America.
1: The whole thing read as if it was an opinion. 2: An "analysis" with incomplete facts is nothing more than an opinion. You can analyze a droplet of rain. You can analyze a full conversation. You can't analyze an entire future event based on what some anonymous people say might happen. That entails opinions or a crystal ball. And pretty sure no one has a crystal ball that actually works. 3: There are hundreds of threads about Trump, Sondland, Ukraine, Russia etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. SURELY it is OK to talk about something other than that in at least ONE thread? And just a note: The thread wasn't even about WAPO itself. It was about a major news outlet reporting an opinion article that is labeled as an analysis as if it was a news article. WAPO just happened to be the one that they did it with....this time.
Yep. MSN however put it in their "news" section. Why? I'm not disputing any of what is in the WAPO article. Haven't even attempted to. And won't even attempt to at this point in time because the event they are talking about hasn't even happened yet. I don't look into crystal balls. I'll leave that to WAPO if they like.
Yeah, I don't think many people realize just how inundated our "news" coverage is with opinions now a days so its hard for them to tell opinions from facts.
Here's more evidence of what I am talking about: LINK: CNN (Web News) So if MSN put an "analysis" report and does not mention such in their news section doesn't that make what is said in bold there even worse? (note: I did not bold that section...that's exactly the way it was in article I linked to)
Where did I say that I disagreed with it? Oh right, I didn't. I neither agree, nor disagree with it. What I disagree with is MSN putting it in their news sections as if an opinion is a fact when its just an opinion piece.
Yes Just think about it, Bannon and his bullshit brigade at Breitfart actually call themselves journalists???
