I wrote a comment here about your keen insight into US politics. I just found today an observation you made on x before the election that is emblematic of what Josie and I mean. Here it is, "preserved" for posterity:
"In the US, both parties are attacking women’s rights in different ways. The Republicans by sending abortion rights back to the states, where some states will not even allow a 12-year-old girl who has been raped to have an abortion. Trump does not have any principles or views on these issues. He is only interested in himself. He has been given a couple of speeches to mouth by cynical speechwriters who have noticed the issue plays well with conservatives. The Republicans are supported by the wealthy, powerful Heritage Foundation, which uses “trans rights” as a wedge issue - with the ultimate aim of reversing gay marriage and clamping down on women’s and LGB rights. Even arch-conservative Republicans like Dick Cheney, army generals and those who served under Trump have said they are going to vote Democrat. I know the Dems position on sex and gender is abysmal, but there are some decent people in the party. Change is slow but it is coming. And none of those decent people will listen to anyone who was foolish enough to pledge support for Trump. I am devastated to see so many people misled into thinking the Republicans care about women’s rights."
This part of the above is particularly insightful: "Change is slow but it is coming. And none of those decent people will listen to anyone who was foolish enough to pledge support for Trump." Post-election, this is even more salient than before.
This is a terrific, point-by-point example of the switch from regular journalistic language to advocacy language. I see this all the time in the New York Times (my hometown paper), but have never seen anyone pick apart an example as well as you have done here. It's very important for all of us to recognize this when reading an article to assure we are not taking in something as journalism that is actually opinion.
BTW, my spouse Josie and I (she is British, but long in the US; we are also both contributors to the LGB Alliance, which gives us so much hope) often note, when seeing your x-streams analyzing US politics, that you are exceptionally well-versed, articulate, and insightful, including recognizing the different contexts in which UK and US politics need to be assessed. This post is yet another demonstration of that. Thanks so much for all you do!
What you describe at the end, about NYT’s journalism—that’s known as “advocacy journalism.” I didn’t know such a thing existed until I owned/published a weekly paper in the 90s. Was fresh out of school and learned the craft by working at the student paper. This was a DIY affair that started in a spare room and quickly expanded to staff, offices, etc etc.
We took an advocacy approach to our journalism, opposing a local landfill, supporting the candidacy and election of Bill Clinton (I wrote far too much about postmodernism for our audience in East TN), and boosting our downtown areas where we lived. I knew we had a clear bias and I knew that’s not how journalism is supposed to work. So I went searching for…justification, i guess, for doing that. I found that—at the time—advocacy journalism was definitely frowned upon. It had been identified and given a name in order to avoid doing it.
Now ALL journalism is advocacy journalism. To be without bias is seen as having a bias that cuts against the prevailing (dare i say) bourgeois aesthetic that contemporary journalism reeks of. It’s no longer a blue collar job that a smart kid can get straight out of HS. You gotta have an Ivy League degree to anchor in broadcast (or be a model) and your parents need to be “important people” if you expect a byline at a major publication. This goes double for magazines.
To say that publishing is a “bubble” is a vast understatement.
I wrote a comment here about your keen insight into US politics. I just found today an observation you made on x before the election that is emblematic of what Josie and I mean. Here it is, "preserved" for posterity:
"In the US, both parties are attacking women’s rights in different ways. The Republicans by sending abortion rights back to the states, where some states will not even allow a 12-year-old girl who has been raped to have an abortion. Trump does not have any principles or views on these issues. He is only interested in himself. He has been given a couple of speeches to mouth by cynical speechwriters who have noticed the issue plays well with conservatives. The Republicans are supported by the wealthy, powerful Heritage Foundation, which uses “trans rights” as a wedge issue - with the ultimate aim of reversing gay marriage and clamping down on women’s and LGB rights. Even arch-conservative Republicans like Dick Cheney, army generals and those who served under Trump have said they are going to vote Democrat. I know the Dems position on sex and gender is abysmal, but there are some decent people in the party. Change is slow but it is coming. And none of those decent people will listen to anyone who was foolish enough to pledge support for Trump. I am devastated to see so many people misled into thinking the Republicans care about women’s rights."
https://twitter.com/BevJacksonAuth/status/1835717155498738039
This part of the above is particularly insightful: "Change is slow but it is coming. And none of those decent people will listen to anyone who was foolish enough to pledge support for Trump." Post-election, this is even more salient than before.
This is a terrific, point-by-point example of the switch from regular journalistic language to advocacy language. I see this all the time in the New York Times (my hometown paper), but have never seen anyone pick apart an example as well as you have done here. It's very important for all of us to recognize this when reading an article to assure we are not taking in something as journalism that is actually opinion.
BTW, my spouse Josie and I (she is British, but long in the US; we are also both contributors to the LGB Alliance, which gives us so much hope) often note, when seeing your x-streams analyzing US politics, that you are exceptionally well-versed, articulate, and insightful, including recognizing the different contexts in which UK and US politics need to be assessed. This post is yet another demonstration of that. Thanks so much for all you do!
What you describe at the end, about NYT’s journalism—that’s known as “advocacy journalism.” I didn’t know such a thing existed until I owned/published a weekly paper in the 90s. Was fresh out of school and learned the craft by working at the student paper. This was a DIY affair that started in a spare room and quickly expanded to staff, offices, etc etc.
We took an advocacy approach to our journalism, opposing a local landfill, supporting the candidacy and election of Bill Clinton (I wrote far too much about postmodernism for our audience in East TN), and boosting our downtown areas where we lived. I knew we had a clear bias and I knew that’s not how journalism is supposed to work. So I went searching for…justification, i guess, for doing that. I found that—at the time—advocacy journalism was definitely frowned upon. It had been identified and given a name in order to avoid doing it.
Now ALL journalism is advocacy journalism. To be without bias is seen as having a bias that cuts against the prevailing (dare i say) bourgeois aesthetic that contemporary journalism reeks of. It’s no longer a blue collar job that a smart kid can get straight out of HS. You gotta have an Ivy League degree to anchor in broadcast (or be a model) and your parents need to be “important people” if you expect a byline at a major publication. This goes double for magazines.
To say that publishing is a “bubble” is a vast understatement.