Read on Twitter
Have been looking at national media election coverage the past month as part of a project I’m working on. I’ve pulled out this paragraph from an AP story as an exemplar (not the best, not the worst) of how coverage has changed since 2016. (Story here https://bit.ly/3lxnDxE )
In this case I note the use of “baselessly” to modify attack and “without evidence” as a qualifier to a claim.
This is upgraded language, an example of media adjusting to Trump.
This is upgraded language, an example of media adjusting to Trump.
The latter is a statement of fact, easy for a reporter to make without being accused of bias. They produced no evidence, and so you report that.
The difference is that it’s the kind of aside that might have been further down in the story in past years.
The difference is that it’s the kind of aside that might have been further down in the story in past years.
That is, the news often tends to let someone have their say, add a color quote, and then note counterfactuals later on. That’s pretty typical of inverted pyramid style writing.
The same parts are there, but burying them lower in the story (potentially after people stop reading) creates problems for a public that scans the news.
“Baselessly” is more analytical. It’s stronger than saying no evidence. Or at least I think so. It’s saying Trump’s lawyers not only have shown nothing, but also that they’ve got nothing.
It’s the kind of word that emerges three weeks into Trump constantly losing in court.
It’s the kind of word that emerges three weeks into Trump constantly losing in court.
That is a much more interesting turn for me. I can see the “without evidence” construction becoming a staple of news writing. It’s just good practice to note when a person is just spouting wild claims to get attention.
Don’t know about “baselessly,” whether that survives Trump.
Don’t know about “baselessly,” whether that survives Trump.
There seems to be some implicit message to readers that the media have finally decided Trump lies a lot. Which is important, albeit it took them four years.
One question I have: When did such asides start? Is this just for election coverage? He lies about a lot of things!
One question I have: When did such asides start? Is this just for election coverage? He lies about a lot of things!
I personally would prefer to see this kind of language stick with the new administration, to point out when claims are being made without evidence. I’d like it applied to all sorts of public actors: politicians, CEOs, startups, celebrities, etc. It would make our news better.
But I think the presence of these words is interesting. There was a school of thought that argued the media shouldn’t air his wild claims at all. This was a focus of intense discussion the two months before the election, knowing that he planned to do exactly this.
This is what I’d call the middle ground. Abandon the stenographer mode but don’t ignore the claims. If you’re going to stick to the position that you have to report what a newsworthy person says no matter what they say, this is probably the best way to do it.
Personally I’d ask for a bit more. A style to work this way into all social media shares built for the story, and the headlines and photo cutlines. There are ways to plaster a story with this language across the production process. But this is at least a better effort than 2016
