In The News

The Deceptive Art of Modern Journalism

by Andrew Tuttle
01/15/21
For Sale
Author requests article critique

  Message Writer
  Hire Writer

Tweet

Lately, I have begun to read the newspaper again.

Only because my parents now save the black-and-white-and-read-all over for me to use as cat litter. After years of fighting with my cat, I (hopefully) discovered her preference for urinating on something flat and not on crumbles of actual cat sand.

Therefore, as I strip pieces of newspaper into cat pan lining, sometimes headlines catch my eye leading to a further read. As a former reporter of five years for a major metropolitan newspaper in Orange County California I learned true journalism in a hands-on approach from an old-school veteran reporter and editor instead of through the usual J-school route. If you think a clear cut bias does not exist and the mainstream media reports fairly and accurately adhering to age-old journalist standards then please read on.

The media does not report accurately or fairly and have not done so for years.

From one quick glance of a stripped pieces of paper, I read a blatant biased hit piece on the front page of the Sunday Oregonian dated January 10, 2021. The article headlined “How did authorities miss signs of siege?” in reference to the January 6^th attack on the U.S. Capitol Building, had a sub-headline of “The riot in D.C. was planned in plain view online. Trump supporters are hard at work on the next one.”

The article written by Craig Timberg, Drew Harwell and Marissa J. Lang of the Washington Post was not an opinion piece. It was supposed to be a news story using journalistic standards free of editorializing.  

Trump supporters are hard at work on the next one

Ok. How do you know? How do you know they are Trump supporters and more to the point how do you know they are hard at work on the next one? This is a journalistic embarrassment. This sub-headline is a complete and total assumption with no facts to prove the accusation. That’s called editorializing or putting in your opinion as fact.

The riot in D.C. was planned in plain view online

Certainly the far-right forums as the writers describe in the article probably talked about storming the capitol and/or causing some type of disruption – the writers do not provide any actual evidence i.e. the names of the forums or even quotes or comments taken from the forums – but if you read the body of the article the planned riot didn’t go exactly as planned.

(I am aware that since the Oregonian used an article from another publication the editing team likely provided their own headline and spin to the Washington Post article.)

Now let’s get to the meat of this already misleading article.

The Lede

The lede or opening paragraph says:

“The planning for Wednesday’s assault on the U.S. Capitol happened largely in plain view, with chatters in far-right forums explicitly discussing how to storm the building, handcuff lawmakers with zip ties and disrupt the certification of Joe Biden’s election – in what they portrayed as responding to orders from President Donald Trump. “

Sigh.

Timberg, Harwell, and Lang claim, as fact, the planning for the attack happened online because of “chatters in far-right forums…” So anonymous keyboard warriors publicly discussing plans to infiltrate the Capitol building equates to an actual war machine in progress? I won’t die on this battlefield, seems like hyperbole to me especially considering the rather spontaneous eruption into the building. 

However, this final stabbing statement should force the three of them to resign: “ – in what they portrayed as responding to orders from President Donald Trump.”

Do you understand that Timberg, Harwell, and Lang are telling you, the reader, that not only did Donald Trump give orders but these anonymous forum participants were responding to these orders? Timberg, Harwell, and Lang believe they can put themselves into the shoes of these people - who may very well be members of antifa or BLM or even infiltrating citizens from enemy countries – and tell you how they think.

That’s called arrogance. And, that is not editorializing either. Ask a licensed counselor.

The Nut Graph

The second paragraph - most often the “nut graph” which normally gives the context of the article - contains more of the same rhetoric. The third paragraph explains that forum comments were “scooped up by researchers who made their findings public weeks before…” Trump was accused of inciting the riots during his speech a few hours before the breach of the capitol building, yet as pointed out, the first paragraph states those online were responding to orders from Trump. This doesn’t add up.

The fourth paragraph finally dives into the headline of the article to answer the questions as to why authorities were not prepared more effectively for an event that many saw coming. But, Timberg, Harwell, and Lang never actually answer the question. Instead, the three rely on one-sided quotes from named sources (finally) and add additional information that mostly serves to reinforce the idea that all the people at the protest were extremists and Trump supporters.

We know at least one BLM supporter was inside the capitol building (he filmed the woman who was shot and has since been arrested and charged with unlawful entry, disorderly conduct, and attempted obstruction of law enforcement) so painting a broad stroke brush that everyone was a Trump supporter and marching to his orders constitutes a serious lack of journalistic integrity and personal self-awareness.

Regardless, even all the assertions Timberg, Harwell, and Lang mention were true they rely more on assumptions (even if widely held) and personal biases.

This article rises past the level of a hit piece.

It’s a hate piece.

Now you know why so many Americans remain uninformed about the real world. And despise each other.