3 ms·
Maybe by not calling it out, it will convince more conservatives to read it before dismissing it.
by jjeaff 6y ago
Maybe by not calling it out, it will convince more conservatives to read it before dismissing it.
- iron0013 6y agoYes, exactly. The authors are aware that some people’s receptiveness to new information is a very fragile thing, a door that will slam shut forever at the slightest hint of ego threat. It’s a shame that we need to coddle people in order to get them to ingest factual messaging.
- smsm42 6y agoI mean, sure, inserting such objective terms as "hyperpartisan" and "masquerading" surely advertises it as objective, detached, respectful treatment of the matter, not some sensationalist clickbait. You don't have to actually click to see whether the masquerading hyperpartisans are right next to your home. If you don't care about the troubling reality of people that may have views different from you masquerading as reporters by reporting local news - RIGHT THERE NEAR YOU!, of course. If you're that dense, then well, don't click.
- ignoramceisblis 6y agoEven before reading the article, I correctly guessed the message they wanted to send. By a large margin, most "news" that I've seen that gets any popular attention (through channels with any significant number of consumers) has been of the variety that paints conservatives as being the problem, having unfair advantages, &c. So what does that tell you about the actual balance of power? It's entirely predictable.