Propaganda != something I don't like It's propaganda because the primary goal of the economist is to convince you of something (that the status quo/neoliberali

Propaganda != something I don't like It's propaganda because the primary goal of the economist is to convince you of something (that the status quo/neoliberalism should be enforced). Propaganda also doesn't mean nothing in this article was non-factual. Mother Jones also has a lot of 100% factual articles, but their main goal as a propaganda outlet is to convince people to become socialists. I don't think that belongs on HN either, even though I love Mother Jones. Is there value in posting a pure propaganda piece to HN? I don't think so, not unless the point of the post is to practice media literacy by looking at propaganda academically. I think it would be more interesting to post something more scientific without the narrative bias. More room for debate beyond the confines of what the author wants to push. Also I never said The Economist denies climate change. They disparage green energy. All the people replying to my original comment never actually addressed the point I was making, they immediately jumped to "but the Economist doesn't do climate denialism" and got mad at my usage of the word propaganda Either way, this article is crap and so is most of what The Economist comes up with because it--again--is propaganda.