News: Fake or Real?

The day I wrote this, Trump and Putin met at the gang of 20 meeting in Hamburg. The spin on that meeting was as widespread as any I've seen. A neutral observer would call it a draw if it were a competition, which is how the media billed it. Actually, it was not a competition, it was a meeting between two heads of state to discuss mutual problems. Each got some of what they wanted. Personally no fan of Trump, I'd have to score him as the winner if I scored it. Note the media spun the story as a competition, like a championship game.

First, Donald kept the meeting to just the two of them, along with their Secretaries of State and two interpreters: six in all. Putin wanted to bring several more. Score one for Trump, though a couple of news sites mentioned it in passing, not one seemed to recognize it as part of the competition. On the contrary, he who sets the ground rules scores big time.

Next, Trump seems to have kicked it off by bringing up the election right off the bat. He moderated it in the eyes of many by saying the American people wanted an answer about Russian interference. Tillerson commented afterwards that he pressed Putin more than once on the issue. Of course Putin said they were innocent. Did the media expect him to fall down in abject repentance and guilt? They seemed to think Trump should have hit him with increased restrictions and threats. Odd, since Obama could have done the same thing and received effusive praise while conservatives excoriated him. My major point here is not a critique of today's coverage, but to point out an excellent example of how the media spins news. Today's was exaggerated.) If Trump had nailed Putin at the very beginning, he would have hurt our chances to get concessions elsewhere that might save lives.

Obviously the most important immediate impact is the truce in SW Syria. Whether it holds or not depends on other factors as well, such as the militias fighting there under the control of neither country. Nevertheless there's a chance for a break in the fighting and discussion over time. Note there was no mention of Iran in this discussion or anywhere else, though they may have talked about it and not reported it. After all, they talked over two hours, and a large part was on Syria.

Tillerson and his Russian counterpart gave contrary interpretations to what happened. I'm sure both had their respective countries' audiences in mind. Thus to the Russian, Trump accepted Putin's disclaimer on the election hacking. Tillerson said Trump kept bringing it up. Between the two I would think our Secretary of State more likely to be telling the truth.

Now let's go back and pay attention to what I would call the meta-conference. In business it's well known you have a power advantage if you get someone to come to you on your territory. You can see home-field advantage documented in sports. This was a neutral site, but the arrangements for the meeting determined certain things. Most important, the two men were basically alone, six people instead of 16 as Putin would have wished. This was huge! Trump nixed it (or his aides) showing he would not be bullied nor intimidated. Had Putin showed up with a dozen, do you think the atmosphere would have been the same?

A neutral observer might feel that the most important thing was the leaders of two great powers met to discuss world affairs. With North Korea thrown into the mix, the meeting takes on even more importance. Most of the sites I read indicated there would be follow-ups, an excellent thing, indicating that it went well enough to continue talking. No one stalked off muttering threats!

I've been meaning to write this blog about how to distinguish between reliable and biased news for awhile. I couldn't pass up the opportunity today. If you are serious about learning to distinguish real from fake news, read about the confab on five or six different news sites and pay attention to the differences!

FAKE NEWS

HOW TO TELL IT?

Tomorrow, Vivian and I will take the dangerous trek to and across the Shreveport traffic to the LSU specialty clinic to see an audiologist in hopes of keeping Vivian's hearing from getting worse.

Actually, we aren't. That's fake news. Furthermore it's poorly written, and for those who know me well, it should be obvious it's fake. Let's rewrite it:

Tomorrow morning, Vivian and I will cruise down the interstate, enjoying what promises to be a beautiful day, to see her audiologist for a tune-up on her hearing device. After the tweak to make it better, we plan to find a place to enjoy a meal.

Still fake news. At this writing, we have no appointment at all. But pretend we wanted to write a “straight news” sentence. What would it look like? Try this:

Tomorrow, Vivian and I will go to Shreveport to see her audiologist for a checkup.

If she did have an appointment, that would be a “straight news” way of writing it. What is “straight” news? Most journalism classes teach that straight news is “just the facts, ma'am.” There are few, if any, adjectives or adverbs. It's written with nouns and verbs. And even those nouns and verbs are chosen to be neutral and accurate. For example, “trek” and “traffic” are nouns, but they add to the pessimistic slant of that first sentence. I just wrote “go” in the neutral sentence.

The motive of keeping her hearing from getting worse makes it appear extremely serious, which it's not. Actually, if we felt she was in danger of getting worse, we'd be seeing a doctor, not an audiologist.

Back to the class. In beginning journalism I was taught that basic news was to be neutral. In those days, news stories did not even have the writer's name or by-line on it. By-lines were reserved for the Opinion Page. Some flexibility was allowed in the Features section and the Sports section. So if you read an article on the internet, pay attention to whether it is slanted by the modifiers or choice of words.

Notice how often headlines are used to get you to read the story, and that info is given way down in the story. It's seldom as radical as the headline promises. But that same memory of the headline may bias your reading all the way through. Some bias is just the news media trying to get its share of attention. That's why the headline is usually much more exciting than the story.

Other bias can be striving to slant or spin the news in someone's favor. To spot that, learn to identify the source of the news. Despite Mr Trump's insistence that it is all fake news, the mainstream news media do less of it – IN THEIR STRAIGHT NEWS STORIES – than others. I will publish later an analysis of the media's reports of the Trump-Putin meeting.

I've found The Guardian and the Christian Science Monitor do the best jobs of telling the facts straight. They're not perfect, but much better. Another good source is Quartz, which at times leans left, but usually gives good info.

When news breaks, and you want to get a grasp of reality, start with the Guardian, which is Free. Then check the Drudge Report, which will be conservative and The Huffington Post and Slate, which are liberal. Sometimes you can hardly believe Drudge and Slate are reporting on the same event.

By the way, it is standard practice for journalists to report something as fact only with at least two sources. They also like to name the sources and tell why they are commenting. What the Secretary of Defense says about N Korea should be more important than a rap singer. It's also standard practice to report both sides of an issue or analysis. If you see only one side, check the sources very carefully and be skeptical.