Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

The other poster was framing it as an inflection point and I was questioning that.

Also the chyron wasn't truly wrong, it was summarizing a report about what transpired over 24 hours. The protests were "mostly peaceful" until they weren't. That was all discussed on screen while the chyron was displayed. The only way to be misled by the chyron was if you were watching the channel on mute or you just saw the screenshot flying around the internet being pushed by people who wanted you to think the media is lying.

The chyron said "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting" and it probably should have said "Mostly peaceful protests after police shooting turn fiery after nightfall" but that is both longer and clunkier. So they went with a more condensed version without thinking of the awful visual it would create when screenshotted. If this is journalism's worst crime, then we are in fantastic shape.

View on HN

It is not the worst crime. It just happens to be most visible, because it gives the appearance of consciously creating a narrative that fits specific needs ( in simple terms : BLM good / police bad ) and is then reinforced by semi subtle, but still clear signals ( if race is omitted in a shooting, you can at this point assume the shooter was/is black ).

That is the issue, it is not one clumsy comment. It is a series of million little moments. They do add up.

>it gives the appearance of consciously creating a narrative that fits specific needs

If this was the goal, why would they report the truth audibly while lying to you visually?

That is the point you are missing as it evidence that the chyron was clumsy rather than nefarious. You don't report two conflicting narrative if your objective is to get viewers to believe only one of the narratives. If the goal was to mislead, they did an awful job at it by telling the truth in the actual reporting. The people who want to mislead are the ones who took the chyron out of context of the report it was summarizing.

"If this was the goal, why would they report the truth audibly while lying to you visually?"

It is possible I have it reversed in my mind. Lets look at the picture at hand and see if we can agree what it represents[1].

[1]https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/27/cnn-chyron-on-kenosha-f...

Tell me what you see in this image?

To respond to what I think you are saying. Maybe the senior lead thought reporter could do better job on his feet and gave him a shot. Live riot. You will need to take some chances and see how they play out. Poor guy was clearly not ready for prime time.

>Lets look at the picture...

>Tell me what you see in this image?

This is exactly my point. Why are you only looking at a picture? You should also watch the video. Remember CNN is a TV channel. Their primary product is video. They are working to convey information through video and not an out of context screenshot.

Do you think the reporting is misleading after watching that video? The reporter specifically mentions that the scene behind him is "in stark contrast" to the "largely peaceful demonstrations" from earlier in the day. The video is clear and truthful. The chyron tries to summarize that but doesn't do it properly resulting in the bizarre and dystopian screenshot. That screenshot is not an accurate representation of the report it accompanies. That is the failure. There is no reason to assume that failure is malicious rather than accidental.

>To respond to what I think you are saying. Maybe the senior lead thought reporter could do better job on his feet and gave him a shot. Live riot. You will need to take some chances and see how they play out. Poor guy was clearly not ready for prime time.

Also a quick side note, you seem to be suggesting that the reporter wrote his own chyron. It was almost assuredly written by some producer who was probably in some office hundreds or thousands of miles away. The reporter on the scene did a fine job.

CNN clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klVhCkhOTRQ

You are right. Live video is less clumsy. The caption still breaks it, but that is not reporter's fault.

So now the question becomes whether the caption is misleading.

Misleading can have an implied motive. I said that the chyron was clumsy in my first comment, so I agree it is bad and should have been clearer. However we have nothing to suggest that that was purposeful with an intent to mislead. It can just be someone making a careless mistake.

Also now that you recognize the video's message is clearer than the single screenshot, I would ask you to consider why you have primarily seen the screenshot. Is that maybe because the people sharing it are doing it based on their own biases and motives rather than the merit of the report itself?

Oh, there is zero doubt about that part. The moment this video showed up, it was like Christmas in July for the right side of the political spectrum in US. What you call careless mistake, I see as the problem with modern journalism. It does not even need a spin. You just show one frame and meme theory will take care of the rest.

The chyron combined with the reporting that night could have been inserted into a dystopian movie with little to no editing.

> The chyron said "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting" and it probably should have said "Mostly peaceful protests after police shooting turn fiery after nightfall" but that is both longer and clunkier. So they went with a more condensed version without thinking of the awful visual it would create when screenshotted.

I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit. When your job is literally not creating awful visuals, you can't use that defense. There was a clear message being projected, and that was that the violence was good, and you really shouldn't pay attention.

>The chyron combined with the reporting that night could have been inserted into a dystopian movie with little to no editing.

What was inaccurate about the reporting that accompanied that chyron? They specifically said it was peaceful during the day until nightfall and that is when violence started. That is perfectly inline with the scene behind the reporter. The only problem was the chyron.

>I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit. When your job is literally not creating awful visuals, you can't use that defense. There was a clear message being projected, and that was that the violence was good, and you really shouldn't pay attention.

No one has ever made a mistake at their job especially when they are doing it live on television in a stressful high pressure environment? This is classic Hanlon's razor. And as I said in the other comment, there was not a "clear message projected" because the audio and text messages conflicted with each other.

The message of "violence is good" also aligns with the robotic use of "mostly peaceful" throughout the media and the strange empathy TV people had for Antifa. Your interpretation is an accurate read of the sympathy the news has for BLM and others.

A person can argue that World War II was mostly peaceful. At any point of geography, it's quite rare that artillery shells are falling or tanks rolling through. Usually it's a quiet garden spot.

The fact is, the BLM protests were mostly peaceful. They were almost entirely peaceful. But that's not how we expect the news to cover any event that includes rioting or looting. We expect the news to lock on to the most sensational parts, however insignificant, and talk endlessly about how terrible this is and how BLM organizers should feel some responsibility for this. That's what the news would've done in any other circumstance. That's what it would have done for BLM in decades past. That's what it would have done if BLM had endorsed Trump. But because of the weird and universal sympathy news producers have for BLM, the protests were covered differently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com