Let’s start with a CNN story about the Mississippi State flag. The flag made headlines the week of 6/29 when that state’s legislature voted to change the state flag by removing a confederate symbol from it. I’ll break it down into different sections, but here’s the link to the entire CNN article:https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/28/politics/mississippi-flag-confederate-emblem/index.html.
The first four paragraphs of the story are great – no opinion and full of facts (what the governor will do next, how many people voted for and against the bill, the former flag’s history, what the new flag will include, what needs to happen for it to be approved):
My only comment in this section is regarding #1 (above). I’d love to know the breakdown of Democrats and Republicans who voted for each (on the Mississippi State Legislature website – quick plug here for reading original source material whenever you can! - I counted 110 Republicans in the combined house & senate, 61 Democrats and 2 Independents), because it will come in handy in the next section. Other than that, though, this story starts off well.
Now here’s section #2:
It’s always nice to have quotes to support the story, for sure, and Jefferson Davis’ great-great grandson is a nice addition (Davis was “President of the Confederate States of America throughout its existence,” per brittanica.com… Quick plug here for Brittanica over Wikipedia, 100%). But two things are interesting here:
1. No one who voted against the bill is quoted, and
2. In a state where there are almost two times as many Republican legislators as Democrats, the only elected officials CNN quoted were democrats. Why?
Re: #1 – the author of this story might not have been able to find someone who would speak about why they voted no; if so, they need to say so. Otherwise, by flat-out omitting this information, readers can only make assumptions on why. And assumptions lead people down dangerous paths.
Re: #2 - Since Republicans represent the majority of legislators in Mississippi, clearly some of them voted for this bill in order for it to pass. Wouldn’t it be interesting to get at least one Republican’s reasoning for why she/he voted for the bill? It may confirm suspicions or totally surprise the writer and/or the readers. Either way, this information is key in helping readers understand the thinking behind what happened.
Ok – now let’s move on to the closing paragraphs of the piece:
The first paragraph of this end section is great – two sentences that make multiple objectively true statements. The issue I have with this section is underlined in pink - the stand-alone statement about white supremacists and confederate symbols. ***MAJOR REMINDER RIGHT HERE THAT WE HAVE TO SET OUR PERSONAL FEELINGS ASIDE AS WE EVALUATE WHETHER THIS SENTENCE FITS IN A NEWS STORY.
I personally don’t know if white supremacists associate themselves with Confederate symbols or not (this is not a topic I have researched). But in a news story, a broad statement like that, no matter who the statement is about, must be printed with supporting evidence to back it up - a companion statement to go with it. Something like: “At the [insert name here] rally last spring, 100 verified white supremacists carried confederate flags as they marched” OR “on the white supremacists of America website they show a confederate flag.”
If a line like that doesn’t include supporting evidence to back it up, the reader has to consider that statement as opinion. And opinions don’t belong in hard news stories. Period.
One last note on this story, regarding the paragraphs about George Floyd. The reason this was put in the story is certainly to provide context – to show why, after so many years, the state would change its flag in the first place. I agree this information should be there… with one caveat.
While including one statement about Mr. Floyd is entirely appropriate here, including three detailed paragraphs about Mr. Floyd’s death in a short, hard news piece that’s supposed to be about the Mississippi state flag feels a little off to me. Remember in my introduction post, when I talk about Margaret Sullivan’s tactic of using disturbing but disparate, emotional events to make readers angry or upset? (she wrote about Sandy Hook school shootings in a story about journalism methods)
In the end, this feels similar to me. Like the memory of Mr. Floyd is being used, somehow. And like we, the readers, are being manipulated. It’s an unfortunate end to a story that started out so well.
If this is the quality of your work, this will be a treat to read and discuss. You raise very good points that got me to stop and think. A further question that occurred to me is whether the omissions you mention were the product of the original story or the work of an editor or producer. Nonetheless, I will subscribe and share. Thank you!