My professional critique of The Times story: It was a legit topic. They led with the African-American thing but could have begun it by noting he wrote in that he was Ugandan, he never publicly claimed to be “Black,” and that African-Americans have this ID debate among ourselves.
https://twitter.com/charlescmann/status/1940917921121030448
There’s just no evidence he ever tried to deceive anyone. None. However, beginning the story with the African-American box, it gives the reader the misperception that he did. The framing of a story is often more important than the facts themselves.
I often go over this very thing with my students. It’s not just which facts you include or exclude, it’s how and it what order you include them, as well as word choice, that end up mattering as much as the facts themselves.
Just think about how differently this story would read/feel if they began with a different fact but included only the facts already in this story.
It feels as though The Times allowed the leaker to decide the frame of the story, even if unintentionally. They did something similar in a Wes Moore story about that award he hadn’t technically won (though he actually had). Moore deceived no one, but the story suggested he did.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
