4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 37:
Line 37: − *"When I was in college, the Christian Science Monitor was still a major daily newspaper, and a very respected one. In fact + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias? (view source)
Revision as of 10:46, March 7, 2007
, 10:46, March 7, 2007→A story about the Christian Science Monitor
:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)
==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.
:"When I was in college, the Christian Science Monitor was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one. Arguably the best of the dailies I could get in the town I was in, it was particularly good for its thoughtful analysis and coverage of world and national events.
:One day my mother says to me on the phone, "You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today." I said "What do you mean? It was on the front page." She said "But though you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought I had heard that it never says that anyone has died." I said, "No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page." She said "What did they say? Did they say 'passed on' or something?"
:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like "Eleanor Roosevelt was Admired, Influential." The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said "This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page."
:It did ''not'' say she had died. But I never would have even noticed it if I hadn't specifically looked for it."
So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 7 March 2007 (EST)
==See also==
==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]
*[[Rhetorical question]]