- Joined
- Nov 12, 2018
No. The main point of courses is the careful use of words. Starting with the inverted pyramid approach, you are taught to be careful in choosing words, to avoid confusion and so that facts are ascribed to their source. Grammar and editing are stressed. I never took any classes on "editorials" which is where you are supposed to confine pure opinion to. We were taught how to incorporate expert opinions in "hard" news stories, but it was strictly for the purpose of context and helping your reader understand why a story is important. What you are talking about is precisely the opposite of proper journalism.
The internet has destroyed any attempts at trying to raise journalism to a proper profession, with professional societies that were supposed to establish ethical standards and police its members. There was a trend that predated the internet, which started in the 60's, where journalism accepted a more realistic approach, from the impossible goal of unbiased news to embracing partisan reporting.
Frankly, the best impartial news source (then as well as now) remains the Christian Science Monitor. They alone have refused to budge from attempting to report news based on non-partisan prioritizing. Despite the name, the only stories dealing with their faith are relegated to the last page, and are always clearly identified as such. No advertising, no sensationalism, just well-written, compelling stories.
Not typically, no, but practice really does help. That's why criminals do so shitty taking the stand in their own cases. Rookie mistake. You need to spend a hell of a lot more time in a courtroom to learn how to bullshit a jury properly. That's what your attorney is for. So get on the fucking phone at the jail, call your fucking loser family, and get them to cough up my goddamned retainer.
Last edited:
