[pwf]

"The framing of this is right off the bat aggressive, casting him in the light of a criminal." Ignoring any moral aspects, isn't he technically a criminal? This certainly seems more neutral than your suggestion. Calling him a traitor would be out of line, but I do believe it was against the law to do what he did.

It IS only 'purportedly' him; why do you expect CNN to report what it cannot confirm?

The quotes around 'abusive' are suggestive, but it is also how you indicate that the word came from someone other than the author of the article. If you expect neutrality, expect the writer to segregate their words from their subject's.

Your summary is far more emotionally charged and subjective.

[Peaker]

He didn't say he wasn't a criminal. He said that out of two pieces of information:

* He violated the law (negative) * He exposed secret domestic surveillance by the government (positive)

They chose to highlight the negative, rather than the positive.

Purportedly went online on Monday? No. That wasn't the right word to use there.

Of course the abusive quotes can be interpreted that way, but there are other words that could be put in quotes because they too came from other sources. They chose to put 'abusive' in quotes but not 'national security initiatives', for example.

His summary is not emotionally charged at all - he shows how the same information can be worded in ways that highlight the positive or negative aspects. And it is clear what CNN did, to an extreme.

[nitrogen]

Which summary you find more emotionally charged probably depends on your existing opinion, and how often you consume mainstream news. To me CNN's wording (and, for that matter, all TV news reports) feels like a stream of verbal knives, each word chosen to induce anxiety and put the viewer/reader on edge. Regardless of their veracity, "aggressive" is an apt description of their tone, and it's not limited to just this story.

[freyr]

> * "aggressive" is an apt description of their tone, and it's not limited to just this story.*

Of course it is. CNN competes with 250+ other channels to grab your attention, draw you deeper in, and serve you commercial breaks.

You could claim it's a carefully orchestrated propaganda machine designed to scare people into ceding their rights to the government (of course, such arguments might also designed to scare you). Or you could claim that they need to do this to excite their broad audience and thereby preserve their jobs and paychecks.

You could say the media dug up pictures of his girlfriend in provocative outfits to discredit him among conservative Americans. Or you could acknowledge that they didn't have to do much digging at all, that sex sells, and that the public love personality news (see all the Hollywood "news" shows).

There's a conspiracy lurking around every corner, if you go looking for it.

[jlgreco]

Who said anything about "orchestrated", carefully or otherwise?

[freyr]

Fine, call it a haphazardly improvised propaganda machine if you prefer.

[jlgreco]

You seem to be ruling out the possibility that they are acting as peddlers of propaganda of their own accord.

[freyr]

Ah, you're not yet up to speed with the new revised definition of orchestrated.

[grey-area]

vehementi (sibling comment), you're hellbanned, not sure why.