Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="McHunt, post: 3395565, member: 9853"] No, it's always a prediction. Nothing more. If you read "Labor is set to win the election according to the polls," will you accuse the press of lying if the Liberals are returned? Of course not, it's a prediction, in this case based on polls, which are notoriously unreliable. If you read "Payne Haas is set to sign a billion dollar contract," he hasn't done it yet. But they're expecting him to based on something they heard. It's a prediction, and one you've read a dozen times. This is what "set to" means in the press. You can either choose to go with your literal schoolteacher definition and be perpetually angry, or you can learn to read the press. The press is largely a prediction service. It collates some known facts and tries to predict what will happen next, and continuously adjusts its predictions as news comes in. It quotes pundits to help with its forecasting. Sometimes the journalists themselves add their own predictions and interpretations. This is called "opinion" or "editorial." The notion that the press is merely a fact dispenser is based on no known facts. Here's an example from today's Guardian (not owned by Murdoch) for you to chew over. Is this going to happen or is it a histrionic prediction based on the author's (ahem) "agenda?" [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2022/may/11/fossil-fuel-carbon-bombs-climate-breakdown-oil-gas[/URL] Rule of thumb: you can generally replace "set to" with "might." [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 246 (members: 0, guests: 246)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now