This entire article is based on opinions and beliefs of other people. It starts out like this:
“It’s the soap opera that shocked official Washington and ensnared a previously squeaky clean CIA director at a time when he was supposed to play a role in the accounting for a possible security misstep in Libya.
We don’t know all the facts of why the FBI started investigating David Petraeus‘ biographer and how it ultimately led to his resignation.
But a growing number of conservative commentators contend that the resignation of former CIA Director David Petraeus is more than simple amends made for a personal wrong.
Charles Krauthammer, the Fox News and Washington Post commentator, believes…”
First line, the writer uses the term ‘soap opera’ because soap operas are popular; soaps promise juicy gossip about things we don’t need to know. The writer also chooses words that suggest that someone was caught being bad where they should have been good: shocked, ensnared, and supposed to. Then, the writer drops the political bomb ‘Libya.’
Second line: ‘we don’t know all the facts…’ Ah, then why write about it. The writer is warning the reader that this article is self-inflected. The purpose of the article is not to inform, but to gain a paycheck at the end of the week.
Third line: ‘growing number of conservative commentators contend…’ Names please. The term ‘growing number’ is used in the absence of actual numbers, the term is relative to ones perspective as to what growing numbers are. The word ‘conservative’ is thrown in there to inject political sore spots into the lifeless statement. “Contend?” Contend means to oppose or struggle with, so the writer is saying all these nameless commentators are struggling with or opposing that the resignation is more than a simple amends?
Fourth line: believes. Why are we carrying what commentators believe. I believe that facts make the story not a third-party belief.
I could go on throughout the article an point at each indicator, but I won’t. I posted a link you can read it for yourself. As you do, notice how many times the writer quotes other commentators rather than speaks actual facts. Please notice how the whole ‘Conspiracy Theory’ is based on the news industry’s desire to report something scandalous.
“It will now become the hottest story around and you can be sure that even the mainstream papers, which did not show any interest whatsoever in this story up to and into the election, are going to get on it,” Krauthammer said. “It will unravel.”
Also, please note how the article begins with the issue involving Petraeus and ends with an attack on Susan Rice, which is another story the industry would like to make hot. It is my opinion that this article was written with the intent to get the general public excited about something they had no previous interest in. Read the article, pick out the facts, dates, places, and names, then realize what we have left is less than a story…it’s gossip.
After reading an article, I usually drop down to read a few comments to see how the internet society response. Most often there is little more than attacks and insults to other user response. This is what I found this day: (double-clicking should make it larger and readable.)
Even the user responses see this article as less than news. Opinion Editorials give one ‘man’s’ opinion on a set of facts. News articles give the facts. This article is pure propaganda presented in gossip form. That, is this ‘man’s’ opinion.