What are you even talking about? Of course I didnt write it. I would never write anything like that and never have. It has nothing to do with how I answer a question with a question, because I'm not selling you anything as news or writing a headline for an editorial.Originally Posted by David88vert
Good try though.
I see that you're not smart enough to realize it wasnt a burn, but a failed answer to a posed question.
You must not understand what an editorial is.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Yes. I understand what an editorial is. I've written them. Have you?
Unfortunately, yes, I did, when I was younger. Didn't make a dime for doing it.
So, why is it wrong for an opinion piece to have a question mark in the headline?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Its journalistic principle that if an article has a question in the headline, the answer is always no. The author is trying to form your opinion before you read it. It means your article doesn't provide enough substantial information to allow the readers to form their own opinion.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
If an article asks you a question before you read it, answer no and skip over it.
think what you want.... that's what you do anyways, regardless of how wrong you are.... but David rips you a new asshole almost every single time you guys debate something. This particular debate is no exception.
Not even hardly.
Even Betteridge has broken his own "law". Does the Mac App Store allow commercial use? | News | TechRadar
It's not actually a "law", it's Betteridge's own opinion. I don't necessarily disagree with it either, but I am intelligent enough to be able to read an article and determine if the article is "bullshit" (as Betteridge" puts it so eloquently) - no matter how the headline might be displayed.
So, what at Betteridge's credentials for stating this "law", and who is he?
He is a technology writer in the UK. That's what he is. He goes through old content and edits it to be more current, and he writes a lot of pro-Mac articles (self-described).
His writing style is hardly objective, as most of his non-tech articles are attacks on conservatives/Republicans. He is a fine journalist, in your opinion, correct?
He graduated from Hatfield Polytechnic in 1989 with a BA (Hons) in Humanities. His employment history speaks volumes - you should review it, then tell us how he is qualified to state this "law" that you wish to promote as a basis for your statement.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
You're reading too much into it. It's a principle that's been followed since before Betteridge. It's more of a maxim, but the principle still stands.
Diane Sawyer and ABC would disagree with you. How many times have we heard her say, "Would you believe ..."?
In fact, all of the major news outlets, other than CNN, disagree with Betteridge's "law", and use the question mark on many headlines. A random survey done a little while back showed that only CNN had no headlines that ended with a quotation mark.
University of Kansas (they have a journalism school) has headline rules listed online, but there is nothing about not using question marks in headlines.
I agree that it really shouldn't be done - but because it's a cheap and irritating trick.
So, the real headline to this thread should be, "Was Betteridge right?" I think that if we use Betteridge's "law", then we know the answer to be "No".
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
No one disagrees with the law at all, some still choose to disregard it. Why is anyone's guess.
Thats one school...University of Kansas (they have a journalism school) has headline rules listed online, but there is nothing about not using question marks in headlines.
So if its a cheap and lazy way to write an article, why should I waste my time with Dollard's editorial, which not only runs afoul of the law, but does so in the most racist of fashion?I agree that it really shouldn't be done - but because it's a cheap and irritating trick.
But this thread isn't an editorial or a news piece, its a discussion and a dialogue, so the law doesn't apply here.So, the real headline to this thread should be, "Was Betteridge right?" I think that if we use Betteridge's "law", then we know the answer to be "No".
It's not a "law" - it's the opinion of a tech writer, who has no journalism degree.
Perhaps they disregard something that they were never taught in journalism school?
Yes, it is one more journalism school than you have presented supporting this statement from a little-known tech writer.
Here's another: Columbia University, recognized as the TOP journalism school, also posts up an entire page on writing headlines. Apparently, they do not think that this "journalistic principle" is a rule for headlines.
Where did you get your journalism degree from again?
If you are willing to take a stance and speak out against it (see your previous posts), shouldn't you take the time to actually review the topic in questions and make your statement with actual knowledge, rather than with ignorance?
Please elaborate on what laws the article has broken, and include the citation to the actual law.
Also, please explain in detail how you believe (your opinion) the article is racist.
An editorial is an opinion. In case you were not told when you went to journalism school, editorials are often used to create, promote, or draw attention to a discussion.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Why am I even in here debating basic principles of writing with people I've assumed have graduated from high school? Do I need to discuss the reason why you don't write an essay in all-caps too? Is anyone still confused on comma splicing? Subject verb agreements?
Show me where it is listed as a basic principle of writing. That should be easy, right?
I'm not asking you to present anything else. Don't get off on a tangent.
You made the statement that it was wrong to list a headline like that. You gave this "law" as the basis for stating it was wrong. You stated that it was a journalistic principle that had been followed for a long time. I'm just asking you to show that to be true.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Are you saying you're unable to find that writing headlines with leading open ended questions is a journalistic faux pas, and has been for quite some time?
I'm saying that you have not supported your own statements, and I have asked you repeatedly to show schools of journalism teaching this as a journalistic principle.
Why should I be going to find support for your statements?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Looking back, I've given you all the links you need to do your own research and answer your questions. I'm not holding any grown adults hands through the learning process anymore. I don't get paid enough. That's the last I'll say about it. I've proven my statements enough. It makes no difference if its up to your standard of proof or not.
You haven't given any proof of anything - only a link to a statement of someone's opinion, which I clearly showed is just an opinion of a person who is not even regarded as an industry leader. That opinion is the only support that you have presented for your own opinion.
Here is what is quite funny. You just stated this morning in the "Oprah" thread, "I don't accept anyone's opinion as fact. Never have, never will.", yet, here we find that you are taking Betteridge's opinion to be the end all statement of factual proof. Care to recant your previous statement?
A simple paragraph in a textbook being used in a journalism school would be sufficient for me, but you only need your own opinion to be "fact". I obviously have a higher standard of proof than you do.
Here is a list of the top ten schools of journalism in the US. None of them have anything published that supports your statements that I have seen. Obviously, you haven't seen anything either, or you would have already presented it.
•Columbia University, Graduate School of Journalism
•New York University, Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute
•Northwestern University, Medill School of Journalism
•Stanford University, Department of Communication
•Syracuse University, Newhouse School of Public Communication
•UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism
•University of Maryland, Philip Merrill College of Journalism
•University of Missouri-Columbia, Missouri School of Journalism
•University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Journalism and Mass Communication
•University of Wisconsin - Madison, School of Journalism and Mass Communication
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Its not his opinion. Do you know what an opinion is? Betteridge is irrelevant! How many times am I going to say that?
Go to any of those schools and write your headlines with leading questions. Hope you like blowing tuition money.Here is a list of the top ten schools of journalism in the US. None of them have anything published that supports your statements that I have seen. Obviously, you haven't seen anything either, or you would have already presented it.
I've said all ill say about not writing questions in headlines. It's universally agreed upon to not fucking do it if you want to be taken seriously as someone who puts ink to a piece of paper. I've provided you with more than enough sources to support this. It's not up for debate anymore.
It most certainly is an opinion, and it was first published by him in Feb 2009. You do not seem to be able to understand what an opinion is, if you continue to confuse his opinion as a factual basis for your own opinion.
What other basis do you have to support your own stated opinion?
I give you a list of the top schools, and the fact that none of them have anything listed on their pages concerning writing headlines, and that is all you have in response?
Universally agreed to by whom? No one recognized as a leader in the journalism industry seems to agree to it.
So, NBC News should not be taken seriously, since they have a headline on their homepage right now that reads, "Al Qaeda bomb master wounded in drone strike?"
Likewise, CBS News should not be taken seriously, since they have several headlines on their homepage right now that read, "Powering the Future: Power from wind or waves: Why pick?" and "Future of TV?" and "Honeybee crisis: What's killing the bees?" and "Fake mountain: How did illegal construction go up?"
I don't think that you should discount these major media outlets just because they choose to use headlines with question marks. It's a tactic to get people to read the article, and while we can both agree that it is a less than ideal one (in our opinions), we can't agree that it is universally accepted when there is no supporting proof of that statement.
You are right on one thing - it's not up to debate anymore. You are unable to formulate any factually-based response.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Ok David. You're right and I'm just talking out of my ass. No one anywhere has ever been taught not to put questions in headlines.
So, you dont dispute the content of the article but you decided you will discredit it anyways based on writing style? makes sense..... aside from not making any sense.
Giving up so soon? I was still holding back on showing you that you had no basis for your statements. Remember what you just said, "It's universally agreed upon to not fucking do it if you want to be taken seriously as someone who puts ink to a piece of paper."?
I'm guessing that you have never heard of the American Copy Editors Society, or of their website, copydesk.org. I'm also guessing that you have never heard of their headline contest, the National Headline Contest. It has two categories, one for individual headlines and the other for staff headlines.
In 2011, The New York Times only got third place, but several of their entries had interrogative headlines (as well as others having declarative), like this one:
One of those pesky interrogative headlines from second place for Staff, the Los Angeles Times, also happened to get first place for individual writing headlines:
The first place for Staff went to the Dallas Morning News, which had more than one interrogative headline, but this is my favorite:
These guys must not have gone to your high school.
Your stated opinion should have just been that you prefer declarative headlines. That would have been something that was not debatable.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
100% right.
Ok, saying that there is a left bias but it isn't "huge" seems much more reasonable to me than what is usually claimed, which is that the media is basically synonymous with the democratic party and the Obama administration or as Sinflix put it, the military wing of the democratic party.
I have noticed actually and I have clearly stated my view comes from ignorance and my personal experience. That's why I am engaging with you and not so much Sinflix who believes the left wing media bias is a tautology and therefore feels no need to present evidence to support his position.
This is good evidence and is helping to convince me you are right although I need to delve in deeper to determine how they came up with those numbers to make sure the methodology is sound. Before this post, the only evidence you presented showed that bias exists on both sides but it hardly answered the question about the media as a whole.
No debate there, we just disagree on whether or not a journalists personal views keep them from reporting news in an unbiased way.
The most recent example is where you stated that your number of postings on crimes committed by blacks reflected the statistics of how many crimes are committed by blacks. After I presented actual statistics that showed blacks commit roughly 20% of crimes, you refused to recognize that your posts (100% black perpetrators) did not reflect the actual crime rates (20% black perpetrators).
I think that we can agree for the most part here.
A few things to note:
1) I do not agree with Sinfix's assessment or that the media is completely controlled by the Democratic party (or Obama's Administration). My opinion, based upon my own observations, and from what I have read, is that their are more journalists that will give those that have similar viewpoints on political positions more positive press coverage than those that do not have the same political positions. That is not the same as saying that the media is taking its "marching orders" from the Obama Administration.
2) I do not think that the methodology that was used to determine the amount of bias was completely unbiased. The values used to calculate scoring could easily be questioned, from what I understand. While the general results seem realistic, I would suggest that the study not be taken as gospel by itself. There are several others that have published similar results though, which would suggest that media bias is prevalent, although not "huge".
3) I am sure that out of all of the journalists out there, there are many that are excellent with keeping themselves objective and focused on presenting solid facts and supporting data. It is unreasonable though to believe that all of them behave objectively, when they are human, and are subject to their own humanity.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Yes, I think I can agree to all of that. Your evidence has helped to convince me that you are probably correct. Thanks for helping to inform me better.
Always double-check the facts for yourself.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
No. I pretty thoroughly disputed the skewed interpretation of statistics that you were trying to project.
You cherry pick stats, i easily disputed them. When confronted with the glaring negative stats, you throw your hands up because you cant answer for them. You can selectively chose the stats you want to talk about and then close the door on the argument with counter stats are produced. I very thoroughly debunked the point you were attempting to make, i suggest you reread it before we continue this debate any further.
I will, which is why I said you convinced me that you are "probably correct".
I have no interest in debating what we already concluded and further derail this thread. I also don't remember disagreeing with any of your stats, nor do I remember you presenting any stats that show blacks commit 100% of any crimes.
You attempting to railroad my position shows how weak your argument is. I'll take this type of foolish comment as your surrender and accept the compliment with gratitude. If at any point you do wish to reread our debate and actually present something of substance, id be more than happy to oblige you. Until then.... like you said, stay on topic.
take it however you like. My goal is not to convince you of anything.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
