> Hm... Care to point out the bias? It's everywhere. I'd rather not enumerate them all. I suppose just list out all the adjectives used in the article and read

> Hm... Care to point out the bias? It's everywhere. I'd rather not enumerate them all. I suppose just list out all the adjectives used in the article and read them. Also, list the point each paragraph is making concisely and read them. Then, the real challenge when it goes into discussing right/wrong, is to see if you can determine what is left out. There is objective news, e.g. "these were released", and there is commentary, e.g. "here's our opinion/commentary on what was released". I'll take the former, and I wish orgs would make it clear the difference between the two. The real irony, since the freaking article on data release thinks it is the place to discuss EU successes/failures to point out irony, is that it masquerades as news while reporting on a commission researching things masquerading as news. It is a joke, but what's worse is that it is not obvious it is a joke. We should not pretend that we are above FB users that can't tell news from non-news when it's clear we can't either. Or, even more likely, we should assume the alternative side can similarly tell real from fake and that the FB ads had little effect. I personally have no opinion on brexit or even FB ad targeting for that matter (I'm seriously ambivalent). But I do doubt the size of its effect and I really abhor the smarter-than-thou approach some take when votes don't go their way, especially scapegoating. Those poor gullible masses...