Argus spins story on creationism to their own point of view. Or did they? How can you tell in the "new Argus"
"To the extent possible, I would carry the water for that bill," said state Sen. Brock Greenfield, a Clark Republican who stirred the pot this past session by pushing through draconian cuts to South Dakota Public Broadcasting, which later were rescinded.Read it all here. That would normally have ended the story, but then Chuck Baldwin added a comment that you would expect to see more on this website or another blog which editorializes on news or the opinions of the day:
But as much as Greenfield supports the notion that students ought to be taught both creationism and evolution, he's uncertain about legislation. He'd sponsor such a bill only if someone asked him to do so. And he wants to be careful about getting into a losing court fight.
"I'm not looking to get myself out there on a limb that can't hold me," he said.
"If the bill were introduced, I'd be inclined to support the idea of teaching kids everything," said state Rep. Hal Wick, a Sioux Falls Republican. But Wick doesn't want to force Christian beliefs "down anyone's throat, either."
Wick's main concern, though - as Roberts indicated - was imposing another state mandate, especially one that would cost money.
The resolution has let the genie out of the bottle, though. It's in the hands of legislators, and who knows what they'll do with it?
"It's like abortion," said Greenfield. "As I said on the floor, that's a fight worth fighting. This is, too."
"That's what comes of legislators thinking."Wait a minute? So was this an article expressing opinion, or was it a news article in which the author couldn't restrain his own biases? In fact, if you go back through the article, there are a couple other examples of buzz-phrases where the contempt is dripping:
"Some of our state legislators now are thinking - about evolution. And no good can come of that for South Dakotans."Now, this is coming off of a front page article in one of the subsections which is blending opinion and news in a mish-mash where the reader can't identify which is which. It's a section front page article - Is it opinion? It looks like it's being portrayed as news? So, what is it?
"pushing through draconian cuts to South Dakota Public Broadcasting"
If I were to give a name to this melding of opinion and news in the halls of traditional journalism without differentiation, I'd join the two words themselves and call it "ooze."
Yes, yes. Before you start, I know it's similar to the things we do on our weblogs and websites. But the difference is that most of us who are on-line are not pretending to be South Dakota's major public outlet of news in print. And we're pretty clear about what is being taken as reported fact and what is simply opinion.
As for me, I editorialize on news and what limited reporting I do is to report happenings in a gossipy fashion. Occasionally, I do some researched hard reporting.
But the Argus deems themselves THE source of South Dakota news. That's news, as in researched, and reported in a detatched and factual manner.
My gripe is in this instance, when you can't tell what is news and what isn't news, but opinion.
In politics, this "ooze" is the bane of political campaigns, and more than once has caused candidates and their staffs to complain about a reporter's clear bias - and here's the evidence as stated in print. So in this instance, how does someone complain about bias? Obviously, you're not going to complain about an editorial. But you would about a news story written in this manner.
When you're reading blogs, you know that you're getting things written from a biased point of view. So, does this mean that the 5th estate's new standard operating procedure is to become print editions of blogs?
Apparently, their thinking is that if you can't beat them, join them.
My take on it? They have their place, and we have ours.
Because when they try to become us, it just becomes 'oozing' and 'confusing.'