9 ms·
In the article I linked. > However, Inger Støjberg has broad support for the decision in the Folketing. All parties in the blue block and Social Democracy say
by orf 8y ago
In the article I linked.
> However, Inger Støjberg has broad support for the decision in the Folketing. All parties in the blue block and Social Democracy say no to take 500 quota refugees through the UN system, as it did before.
These are the quota refugees. The ones the article is lambasting. Asylum seekers are different, technically a superset of refugees I guess.
I'm glad you saw two contradictory headlines once (to nitpick: way down != down), I'm not sure how that refutes any of the many things wrong with the two articles I described above, found within 5 clicks on their website frontpage.
- leereeves 8y agoThat was just one example of thousands. Headlines are misleading more often than not, I find. The examples you gave from Breitbart don't come anywhere close to proving that it's worse than other media.
- orf 8y agoAnd the zero examples you gave prove what exactly?
- YouOkOrNot 8y agoAnyone that's not ignorant of modern media knows it's true, that clickbaut headlines stretch and mangle the truth. Now, what you showed us with your Breitbart analysis is very minor and irrelevant to the basic thrust of the story. The full quote about migrants not contributing to their own upkeep is "there are still too many who do not support themselves. This applies especially to women, where too few contribute." "Do not support themselves" and "too few contribute" have the same meaning. So she is basically saying "too many don't support themselves. This is especially true for women". So Breitbart's headline is correct in saying too few support themselves. The meaning is the same. The way the author wrote the headline is standard journalistic license used by the NYT, WaPo, etc... The point is your evidence was not really an effective critique of Breitbart.
- leereeves 8y agoNow you're just being argumentative. I gave one example of a misleading headline. Just try being equally critical of, say, CNN headlines and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.
- orf 8y agoI'm merely nitpicking. "i once saw X trust me ok" is not an example, it's an anecdote. If you want to put out the point that these shoddy half articles I found on Breitbart are actually representative of CNNs reporting and the industry as a whole then I suggest you do exactly what I did: go to their frontpage and find two completely misleading headlines with borderline xenophobic, utterly misleading content that are there right now. Of course, this will be super easy right because CNN is the same as Breitbart, right? Something in me thinks this will be the last I hear from you. It's been nice discussing this with you.
- leereeves 8y agoThe actual headlines of the articles don't count as an example? They're easy to look up. You'll see that CNN published the same facts with two contradictory headlines, coincidentally changing their position to disagree with Trump. I'd like to see what Breitbart publishes that's worth a ban. Please feel free to provide ban worthy examples if you like, instead of a couple of minor mistakes of the kind every news organization makes in their headlines.
- orf 8y agoAgain, no examples. Why? I feel like your conviction that breitbart is as good as any other news source (or as bad, whatever way you look at it) is not grounded in reality if you call those minor mistskes. Not only is the headline misleading but the contents as well, designed to stoke certain people and confirm their biases. From reading that article, the contents instead of just the headline, you would get they are stopping accepting all the thousands and millions EU immigrants flooding into their borders because they do not contribute. Not one bit of that is true. Find me something on CNN as patently false and misleading as that, on their front page right now please. Thanks!