Active Now

Spunky
Shuhak
DannyPetti
Discussion » Questions » Life and Society » Should news outlets refer to people as "evil?"
Just Asking

Should news outlets refer to people as "evil?"

Like many of you, I get push notifications on my phone about the news. One that just popped up was from the Daily Mail, which began, "One of the evil men behind..." Now, in this case, I don't disagree that the guy they're referencing is "evil," though the term is arguably a bit moralistic for me. However, I do question whether news outlets should be making these kinds of judgments. Shouldn't they be simply stating the facts? i.e. "One of the men behind..." or "One of the men convicted for..."

Again, if you got the same notification I did and know what story I'm referencing, I'm not saying the term was wrong, but it does trouble me that a news outlet would use an opinion-based term. Maybe this one was a slam dunk, but who's to say who they might call "evil" later?

Posted - October 30, 2018
Tags : None

Responses


  • 5391
    While I wouldn’t advocate stifling freedom of the press, I agree with you.  Evil is a judgement call, maybe best left as a noun. 
      October 30, 2018 5:52 PM MDT
    3

  • 448
    Oh my gosh, that has to be politically incorrect. But you know, depends on who says it and about who as to how it flies.
      October 30, 2018 5:55 PM MDT
    2

  • 34293
    There is no news without opinion and bias. 
      October 30, 2018 6:39 PM MDT
    3

  • 5391
    News happens, the opinion and bias occur afterward, or instead of news. 
      October 30, 2018 7:32 PM MDT
    2

  • 2658
    IMO - Reporting should be like testifying in court - leave your personal opinion/ innuendos out and stick to the findings of facts. This post was edited by Beans/SilentGeneration at November 1, 2018 10:01 AM MDT
      October 30, 2018 6:45 PM MDT
    4

  • 4624
    To me "evil" is a "currant bun" word.
    Buns are tasteless - currants make them tastier - but the bun is still made of refined flour and baking soda - all energy and insufficient nutrition.

    News outlets like the Daily Mail make their money by making news "tastier" by the use of highly charged emotional words.
    They supply a consumer group who respond more to feelings than facts, and they use emotions to shape or even twist issues to suit their long-term agendas.

    So then the value of the word "evil" in such a context assists the thinking reader to question the agenda and work out - or take a guess at - what's going on where the eye can't see.
      October 31, 2018 1:58 AM MDT
    2

  • 53509

      Would a news report about Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, a run-of-the-mill serial killer, etc., be incorrect in referring to them as evil?  Food for thought. 
    ~
      October 31, 2018 5:37 AM MDT
    5

  • I was going to make the same point with usage of the word terrorist.
      October 31, 2018 6:00 AM MDT
    3

  • 7939
    That is sort of what this was. It was about a mass murderer. That's why I said I didn't disagree with the use of the term in this context, nor would I disagree with it in your examples, but where do we draw the line? Once you start including an opinion in your news pieces, where should you stop? 
      October 31, 2018 11:50 AM MDT
    1

  • 3907
    Hello JA:

    News outlets ALSO have opinion writers and personalities..      Evil is a word that should ONLY be used in opinion pieces, if at all.

    The problem is distinguishing between the two..  For example, Sean Hannity spews his OPINION, and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with news.

    excon

     This post was edited by excon at November 1, 2018 10:02 AM MDT
      October 31, 2018 6:19 AM MDT
    4

  • 34293
    Correct Hannity is a commentator not a journalist and makes that clear. Most of the "news" shows now are in fact not filled by journalists. I actually cannot think of a news show with a journalist. 
    Ingram, Dobbs, Maddow, Como, Cooper, Lemmon, Sharpton, Shepherd, Matthews etc....all opinion shows. But some do claim journalism.
      November 1, 2018 7:02 AM MDT
    0

  • 2706
    Whatever happened to the days when reporters had a fair, balanced and unbiased approach and would report the news as it was happening and the facts as they would come in? Media figures have opinions like everyone else but they should either zip it or save them for the editorial page. Not during a newscast. But it seems that nowadays opinion sells, not the news. :)
      October 31, 2018 7:31 AM MDT
    3

  • 448
    And that is why they do it for the most part is bucks. Vanilla does not sell so they sugar or vinegar the report according to their own agenda.
      October 31, 2018 10:22 AM MDT
    0

  • 34293
    Gone with the dinosaurs. If it ever was.
      November 1, 2018 7:03 AM MDT
    1

  • 22891
    i dont think so
      October 31, 2018 10:48 AM MDT
    1

  • 3907
    Hello again,

    Let's see.. For REAL news, on FOX there's Brett Baer, Shep Smith and Chris Wallace for a few..  On MSNBC they got Andrea Mitchel, Chuck Todd and Brian Williams..

    You just gotta know what you're consuming..  Maybe there should be a disclaimer running along the banner.. 

    excon
      November 1, 2018 9:59 AM MDT
    0

  • 34293
    Shepherd is not a journalist...he is opinion. If not I would not know he hates President Trump.
      November 1, 2018 1:59 PM MDT
    0

  • 3907
    Hello again,

    Let me also say, that MANY of you who thought you were being discriminate by consuming your news on Facebook..  BS!!  You were being fed RUSSIAN propaganda...  Putin spent MILLIONS and MILLIONS with Facebook..  They KNEW what they were doing.

    And, I'm not sniveling about spilled milk..  I'm warning you that the Russians are at it AGAIN for THIS election. DON'T lay down for the Ruskies.. They ain't our friends..  KNOW who is telling you what..

    excon 
      November 1, 2018 10:53 AM MDT
    0