> The second one leaves out important information.
Did you mean the first one leave out information? The second one includes unnecessary "flair" (extraneous emotive words) that could be used to create negative public opinion about Simpson (or pre-trial public defense of him that makes it difficult for people to admit they judged too soon) before a trial where the evidence will be presented.
Such as: >> were stabbed and slashed to death outside her condominium in the trendy Brentwood neighborhood. The former football star was arrested after fleeing from police in a 90 minute chase along the 405.
Unnecessary things include "football star" and "stabbed and slashed to death" (the gore is not at all necessary and being that they did not have a murder weapon at the time or forensics to determine the cause until some time after the death, it should not be suggested that it was a knife during the reporting of the incident). Also using the term "fleeing" for anyone that did not watch it live may be suggestive that he was reckless (which he wasn't, I watched it -- I am a Houston sports fan even though I don't care much for basketball), and reckless is far more likely to make one think, yep guilty. But he did have police after him which the first one reports in a much more neutral way. Also, "in the trendy Brentwood neighborhood" oh okay, so rich people, I guess I am suppose to grab some popcorn and engage in pre-trial drama now because it wasn't some everyday murder in the unsavory parts of the south side in Chicago, or Inglewood, CA? How is that information useful? The facts of the case presented in the first one already suggest it is not a murder spree so no one in the area need be concerned there is an unknown serial killer creeping around.
*This is in no way what so ever hinting or suggesting at my opinion of the actual outcome of the trial, only more details on my thoughts about the news reporting aspects you replied too.
The first one doesn't even indicate that anyone has been killed with weapons. If you saw the first version you could think 'carbon monoxide?' with the second version you know that it wasn't.
Stabbed and slashed to death is critical information. Football star is maybe not important, but it signals in what sort of environment the killing happened, similarly the mention of the trendy neighbourhood.
The goal should be to minimize reconstruction error of excluded facts. If you do, then you will represent everything you have seen. This necessarily means focusing on the surprising bits.
> The goal should be to minimize reconstruction error of excluded facts.
I agree that the job of an investigative reporter is to minimize reconstruction error of excluded facts.
The above is not investigative reporting, it is simply news reporting. Emotive speculation and nudging should be kept to a minimum, preferably not included at all to prevent the emotional speculation the second option is nudging people toward (it is not trying minimize reconstruction error of excluded facts, as all the facts of a crime at the time of reporting on an arrest are not known).
Using the second one for news reporting is polluting the jury pool by stirring up emotions before facts of an investigation are presented.
Did you mean the first one leave out information? The second one includes unnecessary "flair" (extraneous emotive words) that could be used to create negative public opinion about Simpson (or pre-trial public defense of him that makes it difficult for people to admit they judged too soon) before a trial where the evidence will be presented.
Such as: >> were stabbed and slashed to death outside her condominium in the trendy Brentwood neighborhood. The former football star was arrested after fleeing from police in a 90 minute chase along the 405.
Unnecessary things include "football star" and "stabbed and slashed to death" (the gore is not at all necessary and being that they did not have a murder weapon at the time or forensics to determine the cause until some time after the death, it should not be suggested that it was a knife during the reporting of the incident). Also using the term "fleeing" for anyone that did not watch it live may be suggestive that he was reckless (which he wasn't, I watched it -- I am a Houston sports fan even though I don't care much for basketball), and reckless is far more likely to make one think, yep guilty. But he did have police after him which the first one reports in a much more neutral way. Also, "in the trendy Brentwood neighborhood" oh okay, so rich people, I guess I am suppose to grab some popcorn and engage in pre-trial drama now because it wasn't some everyday murder in the unsavory parts of the south side in Chicago, or Inglewood, CA? How is that information useful? The facts of the case presented in the first one already suggest it is not a murder spree so no one in the area need be concerned there is an unknown serial killer creeping around.
*This is in no way what so ever hinting or suggesting at my opinion of the actual outcome of the trial, only more details on my thoughts about the news reporting aspects you replied too.