2 ms·
They are being paid to "correct" them by the person who has a vested interest in how the "corrections" portray the facts, linguistically. Let's toss out a hypot
by 6stringmerc 11y ago
They are being paid to "correct" them by the person who has a vested interest in how the "corrections" portray the facts, linguistically. Let's toss out a hypothetical example:
Fact: Hillary Clinton is being investigated regarding her use of a private email server.
Fact via "Correction": Republicans have instigated an investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for political gain.
See what I'm alluding to? If not, then okay, but I don't think I can get much more granular.
- tamana 11y agoCan you give a non-hypothetical example?
- WalterSear 11y agoThe hypothetical part was that somewhere, out there, someone is posting this. Obviously, we don't have the actual posts, just the money trail that paid for them.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoNot at this time; apparently the operation is just getting started according to this documentation. If the group does their job well, then - partially kidding here - there should be a representative coming by relatively soon to correct my perception of what the group is motivated to do and how it looks in real life. As in, the burden of transparency isn't on my suspicion, but rather in their actions. To correct my suspicion, they should have no trouble showing all the cases of non-propaganda-resembling "corrections" they've performed. Then there'd be no reason for a person like me to suspect gamesmanship in the endeavor.