I want to give a clear example of the Media Twist — a dance sensation that is sweeping the nation.
I am going to use Thadeus Greenson's article, "That Dam Breitbart Story" (March 2), and stick with facts by directly comparing one of Greenson's statements where he accuses Breitbart News of being inaccurate with the original Breitbart article text to clearly show how Greenson twisted what the Breitbart article said in a slanderous effort to disrepute Breitbart as "fake news,"
Greenson's accusation: "The [Breitbart] story then notes —inaccurately — that the Klamath River surpassed flood stage on Feb. 10 (it actually happened Feb. 9, but that's probably an honest mistake) ..."
This is what the Breitbart article actually said: "...[The] (NOAA) service hydrologist ... told Breitbart News that Klamath River flood waters ... crested on Feb. 10 at 5 a.m. at a height of 41.3 feet."
Nowhere in the Breitbart article is there ever a note of when the flood stage was surpassed. Is Greenson's misinterpretation of a simple reporting of date, time and river height an honest mistake? Is Greenson ethical in his reporting?
Here is a bonus example of the Media Twist from the same article: Greenson: "The [Breitbart] story then states that additional rain in the forecast will 'probably cause another flood [NOAA's Reginald Kennedy].' It did not, according to ... Reginald Kennedy..."
Greenson attempts to show the Breitbart article as false because a quoted weather forecast (a prediction) did not come true. Greenson also adds a little 'soft shoe' by using NOAA against itself in his irrational ploy to hoodwink you, the reader, into thinking Breitbart News lies.
Critiquing information is good, but Greenson's article appears to be trying to rile up an already angry (justifiable?) mob. To what end?
Erin Cearley, Eureka