This is a distinction without a difference.
No, it really is different. When you are quoting someone, you are not necessarily advocating for their ideas. Just as when you quoted me you didn't agree with my comment.
A quote in an article is intended to either support something being asserted in the article, or refute it. It's not rocket science to figure out which is which in this case. The article is clearly about Russian involvement in the Jade Helm issue. It's in the freaking title.
The article quoted numerous people. It quoted Hayden, the former CIA and NSA director who made the announcement. It quoted Abbott, the governor who the made the decision and is the subject matter of the article. It quoted a prominent Republican, former governor Rick Perry. It quoted a prominent Democrat, the deputy executive director of the Texas Democratic Party. Seems to me they quoted all the relevant people involved and then got political takes from both sides.
Um... It quoted Hayden, making the assertion which the article is about: Russian meddling in the Jade Helm issue. It did not quote Abbott about this assertion though. It quoted statements Abbott made back during the event itself. The purpose of that quote wasn't to give Abbott's "side" on the assertion, but to provide information to the reader about what the asserted Russian meddling caused to happen (Abbott's statement about the Jade Helm operation made back in 2015). Similarly, the quote from Rick Perry is *not* in response to the assertion being made either. It's an historical quotes from the time period of the original events, and only about those events. Then we get the quote from the Democrat, but this one is about the current assertion, and adds the connection to Trump.
There are only two sources of quotes that actually have to do with the assertion. One by Hayden, making the assertion regarding Russian meddling leading to the Jade Helm scare. And another by the Texas Democratic party guy commenting on said assertion and tying it to Trump (well, Abbott to Trump, but the objective is just to mention Trump in an article about Russian meddling).
If you thought the quotes in this article were actually evenly balanced, you thought completely wrong.
Your complaint is made all the more trivial because you aren't complaining that any of this isn't true.
Um. Yes I am. This quote:
“It doesn’t take an intelligence expert to see that Trump Republican
Greg Abbott calling the Texas National Guard on the U.S. Military was downright idiocy,”
Is completely fallacious. Whatever support Abbott may have later given to Trump, he was not a "Trump Republican" when he did the action being talked about in this quote. He's applying a label to an action that occurred long before the label could legitimately be applied (even if it is accurate today). The clear point of calling Abbott a "Trump Republican" is to connect Trump to Abbott's actions during Jade Helm. And in an article where the point is to assert that said actions were the result of Russian influence, it's hard to not realize the real objective is to reinforce the connection between Trump and "Russian meddling".
You're complaining that they chose to report a truth that is politically inconvenient for you.
No. I'm complaining because it's politically false. Abbott was not a "Trump Republican" when he called the Texas [State] Guard on the US Military. Pay attention to the freaking tense in the statement. Again, one has to assume that in the course of interviewing Garcia, the authors had a number of quotes they could have included in this article. They chose this one. Why do you suppose they did that? To get a quote of Abbott being called an idiot? I doubt it. It's because he mentioned Trump. That's seriously it.
And it in doing so you've drawn more attention to the issue that it would have otherwise earned. I was content to make third rate jokes about the wholly original topic of the forum dying, but now you've drawn me into discussing a topic you think doesn't merit discussion.
Silly me. I'lll "draw attention" to bad/biased media reporting whenever I see it. This is one of those examples. The fact that either can't see it or are refusing to see it only reinforce why it's so important to point out this kind of poor journalism whenever it occurs.
What made you think I don't think this topic merits discussion? I do think so. The difference is that I think that the "topic" is media bias and manipulating the words in an article to create or support false narratives, presumably in an effort to influence public perception. It's not like I'm afraid that more people will read this article or something. I want people to do this, because most journalists are a bit better at hiding their associative writing. This is a great example of someone doing this that should be quite apparent to anyone reading it.
Well, anyone without blinders on, anyway.