6 ms·
its a fair point though not sure its purposefully manipulative as many magazines like The Atlantic for example try to give voice to various sides of an issue, e
by umpaloop 11y ago
its a fair point though not sure its purposefully manipulative as many magazines like The Atlantic for example try to give voice to various sides of an issue, even before the internet and click-bait existed... then you have "extremists" like Slate who can spin every single story to their far-left wing schedule no matter what, even when it makes absolutely no sense
- Nadya 11y agoI feel there is a difference between giving both (or all) sides a voice and setting up a fire only to fan the flames. 1) Release 3-5 articles all supportive and encouraging and downtalking any other sides. Fire them off daily or weekly at the start of a movement. 2) Spin around a month or two later and post little positive coverage and now post the other side(s) arguments while downtalking the movement. A complete tailspin from the first step. If 1 & 2 don't have that month period between and happen at the same time - I see it as giving a voice to both sides. If 1 and 2 have a large time gap between them, it's setting up a fire then fanning the flames. In recent memory, outside of "fringe" or "everyone discards it as a right wing nutjobs newspaper" (Breitbart) there has never been negative/critical coverage of any school "protests". All MSM has nothing but positive things to say until the movement is dying out/people are forgetting about it at which point they become highly critical, piss off those in the movement, and fan the flames a while longer. It's something I see time and time again. It's the timing that is suspicious. Not necessarily the articles themselves.