4 ms·
You’re attacking a strawman. I didn’t say readers should take anything as unbiased. I just pointed out that the guardian neither pretends to be unbiased, nor wo
by Xylakant 7y ago
You’re attacking a strawman. I didn’t say readers should take anything as unbiased. I just pointed out that the guardian neither pretends to be unbiased, nor would it be obliged to be. So what’s the point you’re making?
- mistermann 7y ago> I didn’t say readers should take anything as unbiased. Nor did I say you did, speaking of strawmen. > So what’s the point you’re making? I guess that creating an implicit/casual mainstream narrative that is objectively false may contribute to second order unintended negative consequences (as in: "hmmm, if they're being untrue about <subject A>, maybe they're doing the same on <subjects B,C,D> as <authoritarian leader> claims"), and that it is doubly silly to do when you mostly have the truth on your side. It's only a theory, measuring such things is notoriously difficult, but I think it jives extremely well with human behavior on both political extremes.