Not really. Maybe even a little more.
2 Likes
I donât participate in their comments sections. I donât know how to lock down an identity securely enough to do that without personal repercussion, and I donât know how to participate in a forum without giving out enough personal information about myself that someone really motivated - like the assholes there - couldnât go after me. I also donât see that given the environment I would have much impact. I have considered it but think it is too risky.
The articles are very strange. There is a circular logic to them that is hard to pin down. Itâs useful to see what is being said over there.
I try to be open minded that there is information that is not being shared on the liberal side of the fence that needs to be considered, but when I look at their site it seems like itâs red meat to people who want to hurt women and minorities while pretending they are protecting them. There is always some âgoodâ black person or âgoodâ woman that they are posting a story about that everyone is fawning over, and then at the same time several stories about terrorists and Muslims. Maybe I just donât have the right attitude to wade through it all to find whatever might be true or really useful. It seems manipulative. I donât mind the WSJ for a more conservative look at the world; itâs factual. Breitbart is pseudofactual. It gives the appearance of fact but is a pretense of journalism.
8 Likes
Given my affinity for turkeys and for cats⌠I feel something about this image, I just canât nail down what that feeling is. I can say for certain, though, that if this starts happening at my place, I will take a video, and freak the fuck out.
But all that is offset by the so-called president calling the election process sacred. Sacred. That just made me LOL / groan.
3 Likes
AT BEST!!!
6 Likes
They have a lot of hyperlinks to âsourcesâ which are typically just the telephone game played through extreme-right rags from a publication that is shifty with facts like the Daily Mail that may or may not have misquoted a source. So some dude can say something about climate science, and then a half dozen links later and Breitbart quotes GWP saying something entirely editorialized and not matching the already questionable source.
Iâm shocked what people let their favorite places just say uncritically.
3 Likes
It saddens me to say it, as someone who used to read it daily, but if you swap âextreme-rightâ for âcenter-leftâ, youâve just also described HuffPo.
7 Likes
4 Likes
Very true. I think HuffPo is the exact reason that drove me to follow sources a lot better. I realize a lot of it simply has to do with the hyperlinks being right there now versus the traditional way articles were sourced, but itâs true for nearly any editorial or opinion writer.
2 Likes
Oh yeah, this is going nowhere [/s]
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
