On one hand, I agree that the story could and should contain more info about the positives of the club to really show people what it’s like. I’ve read similar articles about other school districts that have the club, and they often give few details about the actual club, which is frustrating. On the other hand, I understand why the author chose to focus on what they did. If this club was established and everyone was cool with it, it likely wouldn’t receive an article in a national publication because that’s not very noteworthy. The news story in this case isn’t about the club being formed; it’s about the backlash to the club being formed, and that’s what they’re going to focus on. I’m not saying it should be that way (I like having a more complete picture of what’s going on), but focusing on one aspect of a story and ignoring others is often how it appears to be when reading news.
I get where you’re going with this, but I’m not following along.
Pointing out that there were protesters and explaining what they were doing there/why they were there is one thing. And that’s important news. But this article went way way beyond that. They interviewed the protestors, put their names in the paper, and published their bigoted message along with it. They gave them fame and a platform, and helped them spout their hatred.
When there’s a terrorist attack, responsible news agencies are careful to avoid giving unnecessary publicity to the terrorists, such as publishing their name and manifesto, and instead they focus on the victims. That’s the attitude that should have been taken here. Mention the protestors, but don’t platform them. Focus on the kids who are being harassed by these bigots, and show them in the positive light they deserve.
These are protesters, not terrorists. A reputable news agency isn’t going to take sides one way or the other. The reporting should be structured more like a debate, with both sides allowed to voice their positions in neutral language and offer a rebuttal.
If you can easily tell which side of the issue the presenter is on you’re seeing an opinion piece, not news.
These people are harassing children and spewing hate messages. No they’re not violent terrorists, but they’re closer to that than they are to debaters.
both sides allowed to voice their positions in neutral language
Neutral language? Are you kidding me??
This is not a debate. One side’s position is “we want an after school club where we can learn about science and feel accepted.” The other side’s position is “you are evil and deserve to die.” If you give those two positions equal time, you are not being neutral. And there is no “neutral language” for hate speech.
That article sounds like a bunch of religious nuts making threats and calling parents that let their kids join an inclusive club instead of one of hate, bad parents. This reads like they 100% gave a platform to the nuts, instead of showing how the club overcame their hate.
On one hand, I agree that the story could and should contain more info about the positives of the club to really show people what it’s like. I’ve read similar articles about other school districts that have the club, and they often give few details about the actual club, which is frustrating. On the other hand, I understand why the author chose to focus on what they did. If this club was established and everyone was cool with it, it likely wouldn’t receive an article in a national publication because that’s not very noteworthy. The news story in this case isn’t about the club being formed; it’s about the backlash to the club being formed, and that’s what they’re going to focus on. I’m not saying it should be that way (I like having a more complete picture of what’s going on), but focusing on one aspect of a story and ignoring others is often how it appears to be when reading news.
I get where you’re going with this, but I’m not following along.
Pointing out that there were protesters and explaining what they were doing there/why they were there is one thing. And that’s important news. But this article went way way beyond that. They interviewed the protestors, put their names in the paper, and published their bigoted message along with it. They gave them fame and a platform, and helped them spout their hatred.
When there’s a terrorist attack, responsible news agencies are careful to avoid giving unnecessary publicity to the terrorists, such as publishing their name and manifesto, and instead they focus on the victims. That’s the attitude that should have been taken here. Mention the protestors, but don’t platform them. Focus on the kids who are being harassed by these bigots, and show them in the positive light they deserve.
These are protesters, not terrorists. A reputable news agency isn’t going to take sides one way or the other. The reporting should be structured more like a debate, with both sides allowed to voice their positions in neutral language and offer a rebuttal.
If you can easily tell which side of the issue the presenter is on you’re seeing an opinion piece, not news.
These people are harassing children and spewing hate messages. No they’re not violent terrorists, but they’re closer to that than they are to debaters.
Neutral language? Are you kidding me??
This is not a debate. One side’s position is “we want an after school club where we can learn about science and feel accepted.” The other side’s position is “you are evil and deserve to die.” If you give those two positions equal time, you are not being neutral. And there is no “neutral language” for hate speech.
That article sounds like a bunch of religious nuts making threats and calling parents that let their kids join an inclusive club instead of one of hate, bad parents. This reads like they 100% gave a platform to the nuts, instead of showing how the club overcame their hate.
You could argue that the club members / organizer are the protesters that need their voices heard.