Here’s a recent PBS headline:

Trumps considers limiting media access to the White House.

An average reader might interpret this as the President-Elect planning to reduce the press’s access to himself, his cabinet and his staff. After all, that’s what “the White House” is colloquially understood to mean.

The reality, however, is that Trump is considering moving the meeting location for the White House press corps to a larger space in order to accommodate more journalists (in particular, non-traditional ones e.g. bloggers). The fact that the meeting location being considered is in a different building allows PBS to make a statement that is literally correct but grossly misleading. How? They replace the colloquial understanding of “White House” with the more literal “the building known as the White House” meaning. But, they don’t bother to tell anyone, requiring the reader to parse the article in order through their subterfuge.

Sure, they decry this move as reducing the presence of the Press in the White House (in their last sentence), but they don’t offer any evidence that this would actually be the case. And, it is a reality that many people don’t read past headlines, and many more don’t read all the way to the end of an article.

Some people assign greater credence to PBS and NPR, because they are “not-for-profit” organizations and profits are deemed dirty and corrupting. Articles such as this do little to validate that assignment.

The editors should be embarrassed.

Peter Venetoklis

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.

4+

Like this post?