3 ms·

I don't think that's a completely fair point. People don't read a news article to learn a single fact. They read a news article to put those facts in perspectiv

I don't think that's a completely fair point. People don't read a news article to learn a single fact. They read a news article to put those facts in perspective and context. The complaints of this thread is that there are very conflicting facts and they don't feel the article (and other articles) is giving a fair representation of the overall picture, and rather feels like it's pandering to people who want to hear it framed in a particular way.

refulgentis 3y ago
There's ~0 explication of why they feel this way after reading the text, other than musing about manipulation, and the text cited isn't editorialized. [^1] I think it's charitable, but unwarranted, to claim they're implying they'd like more editorialization and a quick winner/losers narrative. They seem to indicate negative feelings towards that. It does seem as simple as they see 2 headlines and 2 stock symbols in some kind of tension that implies editorialization and an unsustainable situation for everyone. [^1] It's not FACEBOOK VR SHOCKER: LOSERS TAKE $5 BIL LOSS WHILE APPLE RELEASES VISION PRO TO UNIVERSAL ACCLAIM! (fb up 20% apple down 8%) It's 4 separate things, without value judgements implied or attached. (literally 2 stock ticker symbols, and these 2 headlines detached from eachother: FB lost $5B in Mixed Reality division in last fiscal year, Apple Vision Pro released today).