It takes what 8 paragraphs before statements like “The reality of fentanyl is that neither party has a magic-bullet solution.” Start to appear. Considering the average reader barely gets beyond 5 paragraphs and journalists KNOW this, it is standard agenda-forwarding writing.
You see this all the time with Faux News: 10 paragraphs of 'Bidenz comin tah take yer BBQ burgers away!" followed by “policy proposal does not encompass propane tanks for home use” in fine print where possible.
There is almost certainly a much better version of this article out there. I’ll edit a link in when I find it.
That article is pretty different. It barely touches on the kneejerk reaction from the right, which is the point of OP’s article. It doesn’t get in depth with voters at all, tbh.
If you wanted an article discussing the facts of drug smuggling, yes, your article is short, sweet, and to the point. However, all of that content AND MORE is included in the original, since the point of the original is how people have shifted right on drug policy, despite there being no evidence for Trump’s statements.
I’m a little confused as to how the title makes Trump sound good. Facts are facts.
Precisely because facts are facts. The article I linked has facts. To most people reading the first 5 paragraphs, OP article is just pointless anecdotes telling us what we already know: that people will vote Trump, and do so thinking his policy will actually fix the fentanyl issue. That isn’t news. It’s influence fodder. Trump having a policy, and that policy being demonstrably ineffectual is news and shouldn’t have been buried under 8 paragraphs of rhetoric.
I’m a little confused as to how the title makes Trump sound good.
It’s pro-Trump because it lists both Trumps name (recognition), an issue (relevance), and implies people are turning to him as a valid solution (positive recognition) despite the article itself ‘eventually’ saying his policies aren’t one (deceit in plain sight). It wouldn’t be if Trump had not been mentioned in the title, or the title had a negative qualifier in the statement (ie: Fentanyl deaths are causing some grieving parents to embrace Trump’s empty solution).
OP article is just pointless anecdotes telling us what we already know: that people will vote Trump, and do so thinking his policy will actually fix the fentanyl issue. That isn’t news. It’s influence fodder. Trump having a policy, and that policy being demonstrably ineffectual is news and shouldn’t have been buried under 8 paragraphs of rhetoric.
I think you may missed the point of the article. Its not really an article about the Fentanyl crisis. It’s an article about political rhetoric.
Remove the word Fentanyl and replace it with a number of other issues and the result is similar. Trump brags about doing things and talks tough but most of the time he does nothing. Democrats don’t really brag about it, but many times put plans and policy into action to address the symptoms or the underlying cause.
The point of the article is that Democrats aren’t doing so well communicating to voters that Democrats are actually governing with action and solutions and not just talking. However without bragging about it, Democrats get no credit with voters. The article postulates that because of that communication failure, they are losing some votes to Trump. As in, this isn’t a policy failure on the part of Democrats, its a correctable communication failure.
The title does make the article pro-Trump.
It takes what 8 paragraphs before statements like “The reality of fentanyl is that neither party has a magic-bullet solution.” Start to appear. Considering the average reader barely gets beyond 5 paragraphs and journalists KNOW this, it is standard agenda-forwarding writing.
You see this all the time with Faux News: 10 paragraphs of 'Bidenz comin tah take yer BBQ burgers away!" followed by “policy proposal does not encompass propane tanks for home use” in fine print where possible.
There is almost certainly a much better version of this article out there. I’ll edit a link in when I find it.
edit: here’s a better version imo.
That article is pretty different. It barely touches on the kneejerk reaction from the right, which is the point of OP’s article. It doesn’t get in depth with voters at all, tbh.
If you wanted an article discussing the facts of drug smuggling, yes, your article is short, sweet, and to the point. However, all of that content AND MORE is included in the original, since the point of the original is how people have shifted right on drug policy, despite there being no evidence for Trump’s statements.
I’m a little confused as to how the title makes Trump sound good. Facts are facts.
Precisely because facts are facts. The article I linked has facts. To most people reading the first 5 paragraphs, OP article is just pointless anecdotes telling us what we already know: that people will vote Trump, and do so thinking his policy will actually fix the fentanyl issue. That isn’t news. It’s influence fodder. Trump having a policy, and that policy being demonstrably ineffectual is news and shouldn’t have been buried under 8 paragraphs of rhetoric.
It’s pro-Trump because it lists both Trumps name (recognition), an issue (relevance), and implies people are turning to him as a valid solution (positive recognition) despite the article itself ‘eventually’ saying his policies aren’t one (deceit in plain sight). It wouldn’t be if Trump had not been mentioned in the title, or the title had a negative qualifier in the statement (ie: Fentanyl deaths are causing some grieving parents to embrace Trump’s empty solution).
I think you may missed the point of the article. Its not really an article about the Fentanyl crisis. It’s an article about political rhetoric.
Remove the word Fentanyl and replace it with a number of other issues and the result is similar. Trump brags about doing things and talks tough but most of the time he does nothing. Democrats don’t really brag about it, but many times put plans and policy into action to address the symptoms or the underlying cause.
The point of the article is that Democrats aren’t doing so well communicating to voters that Democrats are actually governing with action and solutions and not just talking. However without bragging about it, Democrats get no credit with voters. The article postulates that because of that communication failure, they are losing some votes to Trump. As in, this isn’t a policy failure on the part of Democrats, its a correctable communication failure.