2 ms·
Look at the snippet you posted and ask yourself if that could possibly by unbiased writing.
by tsotha 13y ago
Look at the snippet you posted and ask yourself if that could possibly by unbiased writing.
- crdoconnor 13y agoSo you're of the opinion that it's invalid because the author has an open agenda, not because it's actually wrong? You don't seem all that concerned about McArdles many biases.
- tsotha 13y agoNo, the author is wrong. Take this, for instance: >She argued that bankers were largely innocent, blamed government regulators and homeowners for tanking the economy, and mocked news of a criminal investigation into Wall Street crimes, writing, "For what, I have no idea." What she's writing there shouldn't be particularly surprising to anyone who actually knows something about the industry (which she does).
- crdoconnor 13y agoThere is nothing wrong with that sentence in the slightest. I could rattle off a list as long as my arm of criminal behavior by Wall Street that went unpunished (and wrecked the economy). What do you think the mortgage settlement was about? Do you think they asked for (and got) blanket indemnity against criminal prosecution from Obama for fun? >What she's writing there shouldn't be particularly surprising to anyone who actually knows something about the industry (which she does). She's a shill for the industry. No different to "insiders" who "know about the content industry" who predict that piracy causes trillions in economic damage.
- tsotha 13y agoOh, rattle away with you "list as long as my arm". But only include behavior that's actually against the law.