3 ms·

I did. Thank you for the examples, but I am unconvinced and still believe you are just another person with an anti-media agenda.

• mythrwy 10y ago
  Can you prove it? Ah, well then, you see how that works. Turns out there is a lot subjective in the world. But what would you say this is? https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-washpost-again-false-story-about-hacking-u-s-electric-grid/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-... My only point is you can't glance at Washington Post headlines and have a guaranteed accurate picture of the event. Which is true. Ideology aside.
  • MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
    >My only point is you can't glance at Washington Post headlines and have a guaranteed accurate picture of the event. Which is true. Ideology aside. You also can't glance at ANY headlines from ANY publication and "have a guaranteed accurate picture of the event." Which is true. Ideology aside. So why the need to point it out specifically in the case of the WaPo?
    • mythrwy 10y ago
      So other outlets do it also? Washington Post is one of the most egregious clickbait sensationalism offenders lately (as far as major media). Look at their headlines then go to something like Reuters for example and look at the difference in corresponding headline. If you still claim "not clickbait" I guess you are entitled to your opinion but I don't care for it and am suspicious of what they print in general now (per this type of headline/article https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-washpost-again-false-story-about-hacking-u-s-electric-grid/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-...).