New York Times gift articles

There's actually a word for this, and a an entire theory concerning two different styles of journalism that are used to shape public opinion.

I had the incredible luck to take this one class in college. Believe it was called " The Media and War". This class taught by an ex cia spy.

They did not admit this outright, They said their job title was "Citizen Diplomat", traveling abroad for the "State Department". I knew exactly what that meant but that school was a fucking joke (fooled me, i got out of there) so I actually don't think anyone really noticed. Was the only one to press on what that actually looks like, doing that job. Their answers made it pretty clear First day of class they said this, with the tone being 'read between the lines I can't talk about it legally'. And went on sharing to the class how they had visited every country south of the US border except Cuba and VZLA. Lol.

They had us study media statistics concerning wording, foundation on the father of PR blah blah Edward Bernays as we know. But this class went deep. She created the course themselves (talked to them office hours to pick their brain, they were so clearly an exhausted ex spook very upfront and chose their words like a calculator but fluently) and I believe she mixed some of their decades of work experiences / training into it.

This Professor lectured that after WW1's horrific and basically meaningless war caused Americans/ Western Countries' working class and public in general to heavily negatively associate the noun Propaganda in their "Subconscious Mental Schema". I can't remember the exact Phrase. So Bernays, just some dude really, was like just stop using the word Propaganda and say Public Relations in its stead. No difference. They intentionally took initiative and pushed this malicious attempt to keep their control through basically shaping distortio as Public Relations. By the rich. Government caught on after. To keep it short. IM sure many already know this here in this niche area of the internet but I'm just giving context for the main point and lesson I learned from that course.

There are two types of reporting, Literally, in the sense of how you report it.

1. Procedural Reporting: Reporting that just states facts without any analysis opnion, or context of history either short or long term (usually). This is article is a classic example of how the event is framed, for example see how it ends.

The Sheriff’s Department did not initially disclose exactly how Savannah or Mr. Graziano had been killed, and said at the time that it > was possible that Savannah might have participated in the shooting.

The Sheriff’s Department declined to comment on Tuesday.

The episode is being investigated by the California Department of Justice.

I understand this almost reflexive urge people have to point out reporters just repeat whatever cops say. Yeah this is true reporters are lazy. Without doxxing myself by oversharing I will say I was working in that field. Its not just laziness. Its intentional, depending on the story, Procedural reporting is deployed on other things as well, most stories really. Before social media this placated people or made politics and economical issues, what are in their interest to know about, and the ones with the wealth and political power have an interest for them not to know about. Because we have democratic systems - the only way public opinion can oust them, jail them through reforms or Leaving reaeders to come to their own conclusions and where we have been at concerning this dynamic and social media added into the euqation, its made things more unstable. Why? I believe there are multiple factors.

One being that investigative journalism is not a career anymore. That is unless you do a 'True Crime' podcast or whatever.. or a over-funded Lefty or Fascist/Conservative or even worst Centrist, Podcast. Or anyone with a big audiece omn twitter too. (lets be real lmao) Podcasters defend themselves, from sometimes legitimate criticism, by insisting they aren't real journalists.

Even though they more likely than not criticize the mainstream journalistic media. The irony is funny, they are objectively doing research, interviewing people, following leads, and coming to conclusions. "If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck". whatever. Which leads me to the second type of reporting this former ABC spook lectured on.

2. Substantive Reporting: Taking the facts and coming to a substantive conclusion based on the data they collect. This is what right wingers have endlessly whined about for like a decade now. God its so annoying. Substantive Reporting doesn't mean Propaganda to be clear.

Yes all substantive reporting will be biased. Its a spectrum from slightly or heavily and thats good, ** but its what JOURNALISM IS SUPPOSED TO DO. (attempt in good faith) TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC OR AT LEAST CONSTRUCT A MEANINGFUL ARGUMENT OVER EVENTS HAPPENING IN OUR WORLD WE LIVE IN**.

If its a bad one, there will be reporters who will take notice, focus their minds, because if there's smoke they seek fire and will look at the data and dig deeper than what was presented, and desire to show, through substantive reporting, rebutting or countering the narrative that the original journalist wrote. Or AI chat bot now lol.

Keep this in mind when big legislation passes. At the end of the course we had to pick a subject to study and then collect an ungodly amount of data categorizing the articles takes by reading the whole thing, putting a bit more weight into the headline since thats what typically sticks in most people's memories these days as we scroll endlessly.

Anyway, my conclusions were really shocking how this major piece of legislation that had concerns surviellance, Edward Snowden type shit you know the section with the never ending sundowns? I sampled almost 200 articles really fucking meticulous oih my god. IIRC It was around 90% if not 95% procedurally reported on. No moral questions asked or "this is unconstitutional" just empty articles.. No one dared speak up in defense of privacy. Probably out of fear, hopelessness, or anyone working at these news outlets get paid shit and don;t have talent as their industry's income has withered horribly over the past two decades.

Whatever. Hope someone reads this and gets something from it. **Substantive reporting is crucial. This old guard instinct to be "objective as possible" and do the both sides shit is actively harming everyone. It neither educates people who are too busy working two jobs to pay the bills or allows people who care to get that perspective, even if its a bad one because it will get them at least engaged or angry about an article shilling for Israel doing genocide by writing an Op-Ed on the front page of the NYT literally like half a year after the Oct 7 attacks with Gaza basically leveled, famine EXISTING not ON THE BRINK/EDGE. ** Etc.

Those guns just discharged themselves, didn't you know? The cops had absolutely nothing to do with it. (/s)

I'm so fucking sick of this handling cops with kid gloves bullshit.

"Officer-Adjacent Ballistic Event Culminates In Vitality Cessation In Non-Suspect Person Beneath Age of Majority"

And nothing will be done until someone that is high enough profile gets hit. And even then...

It’s insane that they’re just opening fire, while innocent drivers are passing by on the opposite side of that highway.

SOP. The only thing that matters to cops is that cops aren't put at risk. Everyone else is entirely disposable. Here's a hostage situation where the cops killed the suspects, the hostage and a bystander. The cops, of course, investigated themselves and found themselves to be entirely innocent. They have also refused to release the ballistics report from the investigation, in much the same way that the cops who murdered this girl investigated themselves and determined that she was in tactical gear and shooting at them. They then tried to bury the video that shows that those two statements were easily-disprovable lies.

Like WTF is wrong with your country that you allow your police force to just fire off their weapons in public like that?

If I were to just guess to the reason(s) US law enforcement is so inept, I'd say training and recruiting are a huge part.

Training: There's apparently no universal training requirements for law enforcement officers. Many organizations and/or states have their own requirements, but there's also situations where that is not the case.

The following is purely anecdotal, so make of it what you want. I'm sure it's not universally applicable. In my social circles I have a few police officers, and one of them told me of an exchange program, where he had gone to somewhere in the south east of the US. On a ride along with a deputy, they talked about training prior to patrol duty. Said deputy claimed that they had had no prior training, but was hired on the basis of a high school diploma, a drivers license, and no history of drugs or criminal behavior. First day on the force the deputy had been equipped with uniform, badge, gun, and a patrol car, and a couple of hours later had been driving about town, uniformed, armed, and extreheeemely nervous. Training hadn't begun until 6 months later, and in the meantime that deputy had been driving around, scared of getting flagged down by civilians, because he/she had no idea of what to do.

What kind of system allows you to drive around armed with both a gun and qualified immunity? (rhetorical question, we know what kind)

In the recruiting part: Turning down applicants for having an above average IQ https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 does seem weird, unless you want mindless drones carrying out orders without reflection.

Only in America is "might have" enough reason to kill someone

Why? Extra-judicial killing is wrong no matter what nation's cops are involved.