[transfire]

This.

MSM hit jobs seem to be increasingly frequent, although it is an old tactic. I think (or at least hope) more people are starting to see through it now though. But the MSM is subtle and many reports that might not seem it are actually hit pieces as well. Sometimes it is as subtle as the phrasing of a single line in an otherwise ordinary article.

[steego]

There's nothing new under the sun as far as this type of piece is concerned. Even pissant local journalists are well versed in the art of using innuendo to create stories where there are none. Hijacking the reader's imagination and letting them jump to your conclusions is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

About ten years ago, one of our local papers did a 23 piece series on a pile of dirt with trace amounts of old pesticides in a middle school. Everyone at the school was transparent and forthcoming and the health rick of this temporary pile of dirt was beyond miniscule. That's not just my opinion. I interviewed the toxicologist who authored the newest and toughest environmental regulations.

That local journalist had successfully push vague innuendo that hijacked many parent's worst fears and sense of outrage and they ended up firing the superintendent. Based on the models, the increased risk of cancer from being exposed to these pesticides were something around 1/250,000. Your normal risk of cancer is between 1/3 to 1/2. Many of these parents were convinced their kid's health faced an imminent threat and the photos of their outraged faces reflected that.

But they sold a lot of papers running that series and I'm sure it was the boost that journalist needed to make it to the next level.