Originally posted by adrenn:
I was struck by the difference in the two reports. The first one focused on facts (lawyers for the EEOC had filed suit ...) and the second (NCL has violated the civil rights ..). For the millions of us, today, who must navigate multiple tasks, skimming articles is one way to get an overview. Therefore, the lead-in phrase is key in forming reader opinions. Newspapers and TV "news" sources know this and craft their stories accordingly.
When a respected news source reports, I think we are all better served if the "slant" of the articles reflect our tradition of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" for the defendant. The first article is closer to the mark than the second IMHO.
As a final point, what happens when the actual verdict is rendered? I hope it gets equal placement regardless of outcome. Appeals should also get the same attention. Otherwise, it causes us to question the balance between information and inflammatory rhetoric.
Cheers, Anne
You're so right. When I read the second article( very quickly!) I said to myself "Oh, this is old news, NCL was found guilty". But then I noticed , at the end of the paragraph the word "alleges".
If they're found guilty it'll probably be front page news, If innocent, it'll probably be featured in section B, page 17.
