Agenda language
Hugh Hewitt caught CNN in some blatant agenda journalism, like that's something new.
Unfortunately this type of journalism has become so prevalent that it no longer seems biased to many viewers or readers and some editors no longer see any offense in it. One of my journalism professors at Syracuse University in 1980 taught that any judgemental or loaded words had to be attributed unless they were on the opinion page. His was the world of a straight news writer.
Moments ago, a CNN newsreader referred to Jose Padilla's "ordeal," and to the "woes" of those detained at Gitmo. This is the language of implicit injustice, and whoever is writing copy for the talking head is an agenda journalist of the first order. I wonder if he, she, or they think Daniel Pearl underwent an ordeal and suffered woes, and if so, how to distinguish between his ordeal and woes and those of terrorists. Or does language fail CNN copy writers when it comes time to judge the justly imprisoned from the innocent?
Unfortunately this type of journalism has become so prevalent that it no longer seems biased to many viewers or readers and some editors no longer see any offense in it. One of my journalism professors at Syracuse University in 1980 taught that any judgemental or loaded words had to be attributed unless they were on the opinion page. His was the world of a straight news writer.
