3 ms·

What do you see as polarizing/editorializing instead of factual reporting in that article?

• chmod775 4y ago
  Starts with the title: "Google gets the green light to flood US Gmail inboxes with political spam" instead of something like "Google gets green light to exempt campaign mail from spam filters". Then almost the whole article is dedicated to the best arguments of the opposition, while cherry picking a single proponent argument and presenting it in the worst possible light. The only time a non-opponent gets a proper quote is when Google is justifying having a pilot program - and they're more of a neutral party here.
  • throwuxiytayq 4y ago
    I think that's quite honest reporting given both the volume of emails that will be sent, and how unwelcome they will mostly be. (I mean, I'm not American, so I won't be getting those, but I know which folder they'd be going to if I were)
    • chmod775 4y ago
      > I think that's quite honest reporting given both the volume of emails that will be sent, and how unwelcome they will mostly be. I prefer factual and un-opinionated over "quite honest". Where I come from the former is considered the proper way to report on politics. Anything else smells wrong.