An Axe To Grind

 #346: I Review "The Epoch Times"

..................

I received a free copy of a tabloid-sized weekly newspaper in the mail last week, and have been meaning to write about my very cursory look through its contents.

Most everyone in my community received a free copy (Did the sender target people over a certain age, plus registered voters?  If so, that would generate a mailing list that closely matched their free copy coverage).

As one can find out by googling the publication's name, The Epoch Times, according to Wikipedia, is "a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement."  Over the past several years the paper seems to have evinced a pattern of supporting our former president, while trying to conceal that fact (Epoch Times's ads were banned from Facebook in 2019), not to mention promoting conspiracy theories regarding Covid-19, immunization, etc.

While it's best, in general, to leave falsehoods and the foolhardy alone, I do want to reference just one example of writing with "an axe to grind", then suggest what we might consider doing about it.

Here's an article about the January 6th attack on the capitol, in which the objective voice is used to cover both the good (the president telling his followers to go home) and bad angles--from a rightwing perspective:

 Article titled: "Facebook Suspends Trump For 2 Years"  

Key paragraphs (regarding Facebook's action): 

"Facebook originally suspended Trump on Jan. 7th in the wake of the breach of the US Capitol by a crowd that included some of his supporters.  Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said allowing Trump to continue posting missives was risky.

Zuckerberg claimed Trump opted "to use his platform to condone rather than condemn the actions of his supporters at the Capitol building.

Trump told protestors in one video to "Go home peacefully." while asserting the US election was rife with fraud.  He also said that "We love you," "you're very special"....

Trump has panned Facebook, and other Big Tech companies, accusing them of uneven moderation policies.  Internal video footage and other evidence support the accusations."

The problem here is that the reader is being directed to arguments in support of the former president (he said "Go home peacefully") when there were much more bellicose things said at the rally in question.  Plus there's the final line (in bold).  It's either a half-hearted admission that, yes, Facebook has good reason to suspend, or, that Big Tech is guilty.  This is a sneaky, slick way to be 'objective' (hey, we admitted the accusations of inciting a riot are backed up with evidence), while also knowing most readers will think the reference is to Big Tech's guilty conduct--something that is assumed, with no evidence presented.

This is the kind of journalism that would earn one a termination notice at a truly great publication.  But for a reader with a high school education or less, the obvious duplicity isn't all that apparent.  And so, the equivalent of Fox News' balderdash is being funneled into the minds of our neighbors through the mail.

What's to be done?  My first reaction is to think this sort of scheme will fail.  Wrongheadedness does not win in the end, and truth will catch up with those who avoid it.

My second reaction is to say that journalistic standards should be enforced.  Put together a panel of citizens, selected at random to a half year term, and paid like a grand jury for their service.  They examine several publications in depth (with help from experts representing journalistic excellence) and vote on recommending a publication to the public.  The result is always adjusted + or - 1 in case a vote is unanimous (to allow for anonymity).  Publications could choose to promote the grade they receive, or never mention it, but everyone could easily look up what writing receives a high grade, and what writing doesn't.