4 ms·
Sure, ad hominem attack.. but stereotypes exist for a reason. If a story is only in places like National Inquirer, or in this case, if the story is only on a pl
by rndmind 5y ago
Sure, ad hominem attack.. but stereotypes exist for a reason. If a story is only in places like National Inquirer, or in this case, if the story is only on a place that is rated as a poor news site, then I'm not going to read it.
If it has merit, then it will be republished by more ( non-profit, and independent ) reliable news sources.
- nickff 5y agoApparently it has merit, as the link has now been changed to AP. We shouldn't be so hasty in making (or believing) ad hominiem attacks.
- minikites 5y agoSo we should take everything at face value and only investigate later, if at all?
- nickff 5y agoI think skepticism should vary, and we should be quicker to verify than dismiss. This post made a specific, verifiable claim; I find that most misleading articles are vague and impossible to verify, or omit any context.
- minikites 5y agoI agree, but I think there's another aspect to this. The way many news sources with an agenda operate is by mixing news and opinion (vague, impossible to verify, sometimes omit context, but grounded in reality). Where it starts to cross the line into propaganda is when news is mixed with misleading falsehoods and an active attempt to manipulate context. An individual associated with InfoWars should be viewed with a large amount of skepticism.