What infuriates me about articles like this is that it really should just say that the school Satanic Club had its first meeting, the kids had a great time, here’s everything they did and what they plan to do for the year, and here are some kids’ reactions and quotes about the club.
Instead, it says the kids had “a great time” and then moves on to the protesters, offering them several paragraphs to spew their vile hate speech, repeating the garbage that their hate-filled signs say, and then even quoting two people. And then it follows that with basically an advertisement for “the Good News club, a Christian evangelical Bible club that meets before school hours.”
It’s a sign of how biased society is towards religion that an article about a non-theistic after school club gives half of the article to a handful of religious bigots to let them spew their hate speech and then promotes their own Christian school club.
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.
What infuriates me about articles like this is that it really should just say that the school Satanic Club had its first meeting, the kids had a great time, here’s everything they did and what they plan to do for the year, and here are some kids’ reactions and quotes about the club.
Instead, it says the kids had “a great time” and then moves on to the protesters, offering them several paragraphs to spew their vile hate speech, repeating the garbage that their hate-filled signs say, and then even quoting two people. And then it follows that with basically an advertisement for “the Good News club, a Christian evangelical Bible club that meets before school hours.”
It’s a sign of how biased society is towards religion that an article about a non-theistic after school club gives half of the article to a handful of religious bigots to let them spew their hate speech and then promotes their own Christian school club.
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.