113
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2025
113 points (98.3% liked)
news
24381 readers
766 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It's not noncommittal, it's editorial. The journalist is trying to say that moral framing around coal is one of the problems with US energy policy, whereas China has a "more pragmatic" framing, which has to do with economics and strategy. This is not reporting, this is analysis, and the journalist has no real basis for any of it. They are cherry picking facts and building a narrative.
I feel it is, the entire focus of western journalism is a blase noncommittal tone that says a lot and asserts nothing, analysis needs a better conclusion than just "welp China is doing better than us cuss of vague things". It's just grating as the tone of western pop journalism presents itself within a legitimate sense whilst not truly centering around anything outside of acceptable for a general audience and most importantly those that own the actual site/paper itself.
Agreed in part, I just don't think journalism should be doing as much analysis as Western journalism does, despite that analysis being merely vague bullshit, unfounded assumptions, and thinly veiled screening for journalists to write fan fic or wish casting
I think any analysis will always be partly or completely toothless when done in the west under the purview of capital as it removes any materialist take that respects reality. Then again the only good journalists are those that get the annual CIA award of excellence twice to the head.
Those journalists, the ones who get whacked, they usually don't write analysis. They usually just report facts that are very dangerous. That's the difference for me. Some people use analysis to chase down the facts and report the facts that create incontrovertible narrative. Others use cherry picked facts as cover for their desire to publish paper thin analyses in order to fit their own brain wormed narrative.
I agree that most analysis done in the West is shite. I just wish more journos actually reported what was happening and stayed out of wish casting and doom saying.
True, for me I've always felt that journalistic analysis isn't actual analysis because they never begin their piece with any actual facts to extrapolate from but much rather utilize subjective viewpoints and treat them as facts to "analyze" (for instance not stating the facts on climate change that the scientific community agree on, but instead doing a analysis on "public feeling" on "climate change" or the viability of small businesses to "survive" with new climate policies or some other trite wash).
For the journos that get whacked I feel that they start from the facts and their overall reporting then leads to a cocnrete conclusion of "oh hey the CIA is demonic", or "US imperialism is a net negative to the world at large".
Cosigned.