• 11 Posts
  • 228 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 3rd, 2024

help-circle














  • Facts are facts.

    Precisely because facts are facts. The article I linked has facts. To most people reading the first 5 paragraphs, OP article is just pointless anecdotes telling us what we already know: that people will vote Trump, and do so thinking his policy will actually fix the fentanyl issue. That isn’t news. It’s influence fodder. Trump having a policy, and that policy being demonstrably ineffectual is news and shouldn’t have been buried under 8 paragraphs of rhetoric.

    I’m a little confused as to how the title makes Trump sound good.

    It’s pro-Trump because it lists both Trumps name (recognition), an issue (relevance), and implies people are turning to him as a valid solution (positive recognition) despite the article itself ‘eventually’ saying his policies aren’t one (deceit in plain sight). It wouldn’t be if Trump had not been mentioned in the title, or the title had a negative qualifier in the statement (ie: Fentanyl deaths are causing some grieving parents to embrace Trump’s empty solution).


  • Your choice of statistics is misleading. A ceasefire is not an end. It is a temporary reprieve. In the same poll:

    Six in 10 Americans (60%) favor the United States supporting Israel militarily until the hostages are returned and about half (49%) favor such support until Hamas is dismantled.

    So unless the ceasefire results in Hamas disbanding, or more likely, all the hostages being released reality dictates a ceasefire is not ‘this ending’. America wants Hamas to lose like it or not.




  • The title does make the article pro-Trump.

    It takes what 8 paragraphs before statements like “The reality of fentanyl is that neither party has a magic-bullet solution.” Start to appear. Considering the average reader barely gets beyond 5 paragraphs and journalists KNOW this, it is standard agenda-forwarding writing.

    You see this all the time with Faux News: 10 paragraphs of 'Bidenz comin tah take yer BBQ burgers away!" followed by “policy proposal does not encompass propane tanks for home use” in fine print where possible.

    There is almost certainly a much better version of this article out there. I’ll edit a link in when I find it.

    edit: here’s a better version imo.