4 ms·

news outlets literally put out millions of stories about covid over the past couple years. do you really believe that that was all factual, objective reporting-

news outlets literally put out millions of stories about covid over the past couple years. do you really believe that that was all factual, objective reporting--that millions of "facts" were being rationally delivered--or were news outlets taking advantage of an opportunity to keep people glued to their screens (and speakers)?

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
You complain about a fallacy and then use this argument? Ars is just one news outlet and didn't put out all those millions of stories, so they don't have to answer for them. If you object to Ars, object to Ars.
- clairity 4y ago
  ars is part of a $2.5B media empire (advance publications). read any of their covid coverage, and it's pretty baldly fearmongering for clicks. they're not in this business for commonwealth, objective truth-seeking.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    "read any of their covid coverage" - whose - advanced publications as a body, or Ars? Because yet again, what someone else writes isn't Ars's problem. > they're not in this business for commonwealth, objective truth-seeking. This is an attempted attack on motives, and again, not on any real substance.
    - clairity 4y ago
      and somehow > "Ars Technica is pretty good, partly because so many of their writers are experts with advanced degrees." passes the test for "real substance"? read both, and any other favored news service. read a small sample of their coverage and their self-serving motives jump right out of the page and slaps you silly like a rubber chicken. it's that obvious. and it is their problem, by association, since you're trying to make a (unsubstantiated) claim on reputation.
      - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        GP made an argument regarding Ars being staffed by experts. You've said nothing at all specific to Ars and instead tried to imply a bunch of guilt by association, so absolutely the original post had considerably more substance than, if I can paraphrase, "lots of the media lies therefore Ars does too" and "they are a business".
        clairity 4y ago
        there is no argument there. just an unsupported assertion. just like your comment.
        SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        Sorry, I guess I've been giving your tangential assertions too much benefit as well then.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago

You complain about a fallacy and then use this argument? Ars is just one news outlet and didn't put out all those millions of stories, so they don't have to answer for them. If you object to Ars, object to Ars.

clairity 4y ago
ars is part of a $2.5B media empire (advance publications). read any of their covid coverage, and it's pretty baldly fearmongering for clicks. they're not in this business for commonwealth, objective truth-seeking.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  "read any of their covid coverage" - whose - advanced publications as a body, or Ars? Because yet again, what someone else writes isn't Ars's problem. > they're not in this business for commonwealth, objective truth-seeking. This is an attempted attack on motives, and again, not on any real substance.
  - clairity 4y ago
    and somehow > "Ars Technica is pretty good, partly because so many of their writers are experts with advanced degrees." passes the test for "real substance"? read both, and any other favored news service. read a small sample of their coverage and their self-serving motives jump right out of the page and slaps you silly like a rubber chicken. it's that obvious. and it is their problem, by association, since you're trying to make a (unsubstantiated) claim on reputation.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      GP made an argument regarding Ars being staffed by experts. You've said nothing at all specific to Ars and instead tried to imply a bunch of guilt by association, so absolutely the original post had considerably more substance than, if I can paraphrase, "lots of the media lies therefore Ars does too" and "they are a business".
      - clairity 4y ago
        there is no argument there. just an unsupported assertion. just like your comment.
        SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        Sorry, I guess I've been giving your tangential assertions too much benefit as well then.