Ask Lemmy @lemmy.world 🃏Joker @sh.itjust.works 7d ago

Why does news oulets report on offcials as their country as a whole?

I don't know who started this, but I always feel frustrated when I see headline along the lines of "USA says" or "China signal", countries are not people.

I don't understand why don't even the best news outlets put headlines like " Official x said this on official order on USA" Or something like that.

I really don't understand who came up with this way of reporting where they report on officials as their country and I always thought that this is dumb.

21 comments

I always assumed that it was to quickly delineate what people say in their capacity as a citizen vs what they say in their capacity as a representative of their government.

"Sarah Carter, from the Canadian embassy, says to avoid the all-you-can-eat buffet" could be interpreted as a personal opinion. "Canada says to avoid the all-you-can-eat buffet" is clearly an official statement.

Plus, sometimes the news may be reporting on a memo or announcement from a government entity which was crafted by several people and has no author listed.
- In that case, it can reported on in formal way.
  
  "Russian official said" Or even "Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs said Russia should try to calm down".
  
  You get my point.
  
  They are 'representatives'. The US President or relevant diplomat literally speak for the country which is why the language is appropriate. Like it or not, your leader (and their delegates) speaks for you in an official capacity which is what that kind of dialogue describes. The extra specificity you desire is superfluous and actually subtracts from truly describing what is going on.
  
  Being awarded with a Medal of Honour by Biden? No. Biden isn't giving you a datta-boy. The entire nation is expressing their gratitude. Is it fair that an entire nation gets marred by 1 individual's buffoonery (exhibit A: Trump's entire first term)? No. Accurate? Yes (see the next 4 years).
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headline#Headlinese
Countries do make official statements and individual officials in a government can be understood to be speaking on behalf of a nation.
- But in that case they would be better reported as " Country X said in official statement " Or "Official Z speaking on behalf of country Y, said"
  
  Right?
  
  If the statement is an official one why does it matter who delivered it?
  
  AP style recommends <100 characters, hence stuff like this and the ubiquitous comma used in lieu of the word 'and', among other things.
  
  But the ideal headline has even less characters than that due to search engines. 100 characters are an awful lot in that regard, so <60-70 becomes even better
  
  Edit: didn't take long for me to find an example for you. This is what is considered a 'bad headline':
  
  That just sounds like extra words added to a headline that everyone already understands.
  
  Even if your way IS better, things aren't often done "the best" way.
  
  Costs, space, time and extra work often make a "less than perfect" method MORE realistic in day to day processes.
Your word of the day is "synecdoche".
Most people confuse the actions of a head of state and that country itself.

"America is self centered and capitalist", no that's just Trump.

"Russia is bloodthirsty and imperialistic", no that's just Putin.

"China is totalitarian and hostile", no that's just Xi Jinping.

Obviously you can blame democratic countries for electing their heads of state, but it's unfortunately too common that people generalize about entire countries.

I think the habit of attributing state actions to their capital makes more sense. eg "Washington denounces Moscow's recent escalation", etc.
I see X official says stuff all the time. Usually though if you talk about a law that will be enacted or some executive order that will result in a country doing something a certain way then it says the country. So you tend to see it more often when the executive have power where if they say something is is going to happen vs a democracy were the executive has little chance of making happen what they said.
Because not all sources allow attribution.
- Can you expand on that point or give example?
  
  An MP or elected official wants to leak some information. They talk to a journalist and a condition of the information is the MP can not be named. What would you do as a journalist?
  
  If you name your source, you will no longer get any information from them, depending on the sensitivity of the information the person may loose their position and be shoved to the back benches.

21 comments