> is certainly not up to the lousy journalist that wrote that title to decide.
Journalists are allowed to interpret. In fact, that's a core part of journalism.
Journalists are allowed to interpret. In fact, that's a core part of journalism.
The journalist's job is:
..to report a factual event that happened and give the reader enough factual context and analysis for that report to be useful.
Not:
..to convince the reader of one position or another
..to expound on their own political beliefs or opinions
I find that many self-described journalists are able to avoid the second problem but hold up the first as if it were a virtue.
The core part of journalism is to present facts and let the interpretation up to the reader.
Journalism should be about illuminating a topic, including providing context.
I have my gripes with journalism that misuses facts and statistics to spin an alternate reality, but I don't think this was the case.
The twitter account never pretended to be a US official, it's always been clear that they are an "alt" account.
So for you to claim (someone who, if I'm not mistaken, has zero first hand knowledge about the situation) that your interpretation is more accurate than a "lousy" journalist who actually researched the issue is to my mind a little weird.
BTW, I'm sure you're aware that editors write headlines, not journalists right?
No, like a scientific paper. Have you ever tried to read one and understand this alien concept on how you can actually present facts without giving leeway to your personal politic views and fantasies?