"Without evidence, Trump alleges forged ballots in Florida, calls for halting recounts" reads the top headline in the Washington Post. There it is again. It never stops. That pesky qualifier "Without evidence..." followed by an outrageous claim.
So that frames the issue as two sides, where one side introduces a new topic - a charge of a crime, so far an nonexistent crime --- "without evidence" gives it away. Pretending your political opponent has committed a crime tells us that you, the accuser may just as credibly be committing a crime and covering it up by being the first to frame the issue (see Lakoff) or maybe just "suppressing" the counting of ballots.
What is a legitimate news organization to do?
The Miami Herald's "Trump, Scott and Rubio continue to push claims of Florida voter fraud without evidence" does better. But something is missing.
First of all, center every story on the most credible narrative at the moment, not on the most outrageous statement or action of Trump or anyone else. Make the headline reflect that reality. As part of that effort, resist the impulse to center the subject of the headline on a person making a claim. If the process is so important, which voting is, then make the headline about that to improve the accuracy and the reader's best understanding of what is happening.
So remove Trump as the subject of the sentence. Make it Election, Ballots, Voting, or Voters.
"Without evidence.." should never be the start or even part of a headline on any important matter. Never.
Accurate count of Florida ballot threatened by unsubstantiated claims of Trump, Scott, and Rubio.
That's better, but something is still missing.
Isn't making accusations without any evidence an "outrageous" claim? How hard would it be to cite evidence if the claim has any credibility? Then call it "outrageous" when it is outrageous.
Accurate count of Florida ballot for Senator and Governor threatened by outrageous claims of Trump, Scott, and Rubio.
That's it! And isn't that the real story?
No comments:
Post a Comment