What makes news “news”? Is it the source? The research? The author?
What’s the difference between news and an opinion? Can an opinion be news, or vise versa?
Following in last weeks footsteps, this week we are going to continue with the topic of veganism to get a better idea as to what makes news news-worthy, and what makes opinion articles… opinionated.
News :
This article posted by The Economist discusses the rising interest in Veganism, but what puts it in the category of news? Published in January of 2020, the article begins by focusing on the topic of “Veganuary” – Where people participate in a vegan diet for the month of January in order to start their year with their health as a priority. With timing playing a large part in what makes a news story newsworthy, The Economist chose the right time to publish this article to get the most attention.
In addition to timing, facts are at the forefront of this article. This article is based on statistics from Google, which shows a steady rise in interest in veganism over the past 5 years spanning across 8 countries. The article also references Ipsos MORI, which is a UK based market research company, to show the rising interest in meatless diets across the globe. All statistics mentioned have a clear source listed, and all sources seem to be non biased.
This story is significant and relevant to what people are interested in today. The rise of veganism is something that is talked about often, but not always backed up with statistics. What differentiates The Economist’s article from an opinion based article is that it is not presenting a vegan diet as “good” or “bad”, it is discussing the interest in veganism as statistics have shown it to be.
The reason this article here can be deemed as credible is because The Economist has no association with vegan organizations or companies. The article is not promoting or bashing the lifestyle, they are just simply stating facts and what has impacted this rise in interest.
Moving on, we’re now going to look at an article posted by BBC discussing a vegan diet’s impact on intelligence. While the vegan diet is often promoted by followers as a way to clear up brain fog and become a sharper thinker, it is rare that these claims are backed up by anything more than personal experience.
This article uses everything from scientific and anthropologic perspectives to modern day statistics and studies. In particular, it references a study conducted by The National Center for Biotechnology Information in which 555 Kenyan schoolchildren were fed either a soup with meat, milk, or oil, or no soup at all, as a midday snack and then were tested on their nonverbal reasoning skills. The article acknowledges that the children fed meat out preformed the other children, but also brings up the fact that this study would need to be preformed on adults too to get conclusive information.
In addition to the statistics and studies quoted throughout, a food scientist is part of the discussion throughout this article and they provide good information on the nutrients that cannot be gained through any plant based food. BBC builds a great sense of credibility by providing multiple professional standpoints and quoting studies and statistics from all over the world. This article addresses both the possible deficiency and how to substitute for them in a way that is not fear mongering.
But, what makes this article news? As stated previously, plant based diets have risen in popularity tremendously over the last 5 years. People are interested in hearing about veganism and even more so interested in learning about the science behind it either validating or invalidating it. In addition to interest, this article is impactful because of the sheer amount of information it holds.
A lot of what is discussed are parts of a plant based diet that gets very little coverage, so the impact of an article like such is greater than the impact of an article that talks about something such as the environmental benefits of a vegan diet. What makes articles such as this one news is that it is both interesting and thought provoking, sharing new and credible information.
Opinion:
In this article posted by The Spectator, the author’s feelings on why veganism is brave are discussed. Although a meat eater themselves, the author is sympathetic to the struggles a vegan or vegetarian may face from living in a meat eating society. The author openly disagrees with those who fault vegans for sitting in leather chairs or mistakenly using not cruelty free items. In addition, the author in this article brands vegans as brave for facing these rejections and criticisms.
This piece reads as the author’s thought process. The author addresses their feelings towards eating meat, their feelings towards those who don’t eat meat, and their feelings towards those who think negatively of those who don’t eat meat. No statistics or sources are listed, and much of the article reads as a glimpse into the thought process of another person making it not a credible source of information.
What makes this piece an opinion piece is that no new information is being presented, nor does this piece reflect the feelings of everyone working for The Spectator. The article stems from a personal story and develops the authors own train of thought. While it may be an interesting viewpoint on veganism from a person who may have a different background than your own, nothing about it is based in science or fact.
Another opinion based article on veganism is this article addressing the relationship between vegans and farmers posted by The Telegraph. Titled, “The real problem vegans have with farmers is that they don’t want them to exist”, it’s already rather clear that this article is not based on evidence or facts. The author goes on to discuss that he feels there needs to be respect and understanding amongst vegans and farmers, and that he feels farmers can never “do enough” to satisfy vegans.
What makes this clearly an opinion piece, is that there is no way to show that all vegans have an issue with farming or choose to follow a vegan diet for animal rights reasons. Social media is discussed as a reasoning for the tension between farmers and vegans, but the author never mentions having any backings for these claims. In addition, the author does not mention having any sort of degree or experience that would make them a credible source to be making comments on veganism and farming.
This article could not be called a credible source of information on the issues between vegans and farmers, because the author is making assumptions on the vegan community and not providing evidence to support these claims. In addition, much like the last article this is reflective of one person’s perspective not the perspective of The Telegraph as a company.
Conclusion :
Overall, telling an opinion article apart from a news article is not always simple. Looking for non biased pieces with statistical information and credible sources is a good way to decipher opinion from credible news. When discussing veganism in particular, the strong feelings people have on the topic from all angles often add an extra level of difficulty when trying to figure out what is real and what is not. In the end, getting our information from people and places we trust to show us both sides of the argument is almost always what is best.
