Just the Facts, Ma'am

Example 1: Immigration (right-leaning source)

Original phrasing (excerpt):

The administration has quietly decided to allow employers to import 65,000 extra H-2B visa migrants for jobs that would otherwise pay decent wages to ordinary Americans who vote.

Separated:

FACT
The administration authorized 65,000 additional H-2B visas.

BACKGROUND
The H-2B program allows employers to hire temporary foreign workers when domestic labor is unavailable.

DIRECTION
“quietly decided”
“import”
“decent wages”
“ordinary Americans who vote”

What that direction does:
It signals secrecy, betrayal, and voter harm — without adding new information.

Example 2: Documentary ticket sales (left-leaning source)

Original phrasing (excerpt):

Seats paid for in buyouts count toward box office sales, yet could remain empty.

Separated:

FACT
Tickets purchased for private screenings count toward box office totals.

BACKGROUND
Private screenings require purchasing all seats in a showing.

DIRECTION
“yet could remain empty”

What that direction does:
It raises suspicion without making a direct accusation.

One tiny example anyone can see

Original:

Lawmakers rushed through the bill late at night.

FACT
The bill passed after evening debate.

BACKGROUND
The vote occurred near the end of the legislative session.

DIRECTION
“rushed”
“late at night”

Same event.
Different emotional tilt.

What this shows

When you separate things like this, a few patterns jump out:

• Facts alone often feel thin
• Background adds meaning without telling you what to think
• Direction supplies orientation — who’s good, bad, cheated, or suspect

Different camps use different tools:

• The right often leans on identity and betrayal language
• The left often leans on implication and juxtaposition

Different styles.
Same function.

Why this matters

Most of us aren’t really arguing about facts anymore.

We’re arguing inside different weather systems.
Inside a storm, persuasion doesn’t feel like persuasion — it feels like reality.

This exercise doesn’t ask you to give up your values.
It just lets you see where the steering begins.

Once you see that, you get a choice back.

Try this yourself (30 seconds)

Take any political paragraph and ask:

• What is the fact?
• What is background?
• What tells me how I’m supposed to feel?

If you remove only the last category and the meaning collapses, you’ve learned something.

The point

“Just the facts” doesn’t mean facts are enough.

It means facts deserve not to be smuggled inside emotional commands.

Separating facts, background, and direction won’t end disagreement —
but it might lower the volume enough that disagreement becomes possible again.

And right now, that would already be progress.