Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint
We're conditioned to assume that a news story is a compact summary of the relevant material, which has been scoured over by an editor to remove superfluous verbage; therefore we assume that any sentences contained are actually pertinent to the story.
One of my least favorite tricks of the journalistic trade is to include a total non sequitur in the story, and let the assumed reason for including the sentence create a connection that doesn't exist, or can't be demonstrated directly.
This one is very popular: "couldn't be reached for comment" equals "GUILTY AS HELL."
|
Flint:
Since the reader creates that connection only in his own head, how much of the responsibility for the unsupported conclusion does he bear?