[bwest87]

I think PG is getting at a larger point, which I heavily agree with, that journalists very often use words that imply a lot of "story" that is not supported by "facts". For example, I just went on to the NYTimes Economy section right now, and the second article says "Short of Workers, US Farmers Crave More Immigrants". Crave? Really? Cable news is horrendous about this. They do stuff all the time that's like, "Senator XYZ blasts Trump". Blasts? And that's just headlines. But you see it all the time in subtle lines throughout an article, such as, "Facebook's employees have been raising a stir". Or like, "The new law is leaving homeowners in a lurch". These words have no quantifiable meaning, and typically it seems journalists pick words that have more average "emotional valence" than other words, even if the facts don't quite support that level of emotional valence. And that honestly is the part that annoys me the most about normal journalism.

[dragonwriter]

> I think PG is getting at a larger point, which I heavily agree with, that journalists very often use words that imply a lot of "story" that is not supported by "facts".

And he illustrates this larger point with specific claims that are, themselves, unsupported by facts and constructed around the narrative he is trying to push.

[anigbrowl]

I agree, but dramatic presentation is what gets attention. A dry recitation of the facts performs poorly in the marketplace.