Thread by @robertgraham

1/ One of the things that fascinates me about journalism is the distinctive, objective difference in the way that the Associate Press reports news and the way the the New York Times reports news.

The AP prides itself on neutrality, the NYTimes prides itself on interpretation.

2/ Take today's daily Twitter outrage as an example. The GOP passes a resolution censuring a couple of its members. You can read the full text of their resolution here:
int.nyt.com/data/documentt…

3/ Both the AP and NYTimes wrote nearly identical, and yet, completely different (sic) stories. You can see the difference in their titles.

The NYTimes interprets what the resolution said, the AP describes it neutrally.

4/ This continues to their leads. Note that the NYTimes is factually in error: the censure certainly "implies" that thing, but doesn't "officially declare" that thing -- this is the NYTimes interpretation.

5/ Both quote GOP chair Ronna McDaniel as clarifying things, that the GOP wasn't referring to the violent bits, but the things that weren't violence.

Both NYTimes/AP point out that while this may be true, but the censure resolution made no such distinction.

6/ Both quote Romney tweeting a condemnation of his own party, while pointing out GOP chair McDaniel is his niece.

So what we have here are two fundamentally identical stories, but told in the "NYTimes way" and the "AP way".

7/ The APs language uses plain language. The NYTimes uses terms full of connotation and judgements, like "vacillation" or "rushed" in the text below. Consider if the author had chosen "debate" in stead: one word is neutral description, the other personal judgement.

8/ The AP does use the word "insurrection" here, though. I, too, use the word, but I'm worried if it's truly neutral. On one hand, the events clearly match the dictionary definition of the word. On the other hand, none of the 768 people involved were charged with "insurrection".

9/ Sure, the NYTimes is biased against Republicans, but I thing their actual bias is that of elitism. They need to decide for the reader what they should think rather neutrally give them the facts and let the reader determine for themselves.

10/ I agree that GOP is trying to downplay and excuse the events of Jan 6, but on the other hand, it's legitimate for the GOP to fear that Democrats will exaggerate those events. The investigation is clearly a political rather than neutral process.

11/ Personally, since I believe the Republicans are rat bastards on this issue fighting the peaceful transfer of power, I want the Jan 6 to be as FAIR as possible. The more partisan their conclusions, the less effective they will be.

12/ Anyway, the purpose of this thread is to show the distinct styles of journalism. I feel these sorts of articles should be in a textbook somewhere, contrasting NYTimes elitist interpretations vs. the AP factual neutrality.

13/ This tweet makes a great point (so I'm taking a screenshot of it).

The problem is YOUR inability to come up with any other interpretation is YOUR flaw, your ignorance, your lack of empathy. I don't mean this insulting. Let's see what I mean...

https://twitter.com/nwbvt/status/1489778907540865027

14/ If you talk with Republicans (such as this quote from the AP story) you'll find widespread unhappiness with the way the Jan 6 committee is going after people with absolutely zero involvement in the Jan 6 attacks.

15/ The reason the text doesn't make this distinction is because all Republicans already know the distinction. Republicans wouldn't interpret the text this way. Even the Republicans (like Romney) who are critical of the censure don't interpret the text this way.

16/ The Jan 6 committee is investigating the thing BEHIND the insurrection, namely Trump's attempt to overturn the election. That means lots of subpoenas for things that aren't directly related to the violence at the capitol.