4 ms·

Sure. Since my main takeaway from the article is that it's propaganda click bait where the title and topic is to imply that the U.S. is in a strong position, pa

Sure. Since my main takeaway from the article is that it's propaganda click bait where the title and topic is to imply that the U.S. is in a strong position, particularly given the timing and related news of the day, I attribute the underlying intent to "someone at axios wants to write a fluff piece about the Biden admin". Yes, that might be what you call a conspiracy theory, OK. I obviously can't prove it absent commentary from the author or other Axios representative in official capacity. But come on, really. Pretend it was Trump and Fox.

wolverine876 5y ago
> But come on, really. Pretend it was Trump and Fox Either there is a factual basis or there's not. And who are you talking about? Do you have any basis for me saying whatever you are implying? Are you saying everyone says it? Do you have any basis for comparing Axios to Fox? And if it's false for Trump and Fox, isn't it just as false here - you therefore know it's false? > I obviously can't prove it There's a lot of territory between proof to empty fabrications. You don't provide any evidence or more than two dots of data on a big graph - which you arbitrarily connect and claim the new line is a trend. Does that person even still work at Axios? In what role? Is there reason to believe they were involved in this article? What about others at Axios - including those directly involved in the article - do they have biases and why aren't they just as likely to affect this article? What about the author or their editor? If Axios had that bias, can you point to other similar articles? It's absurd to reason, 'this article might reflect well on the White House, therefore it's biased'. Isn't some positive news inevitable?
- throwfaraway9 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]