-
It's reporting actual posts on websites. It's easy to go and find those usernames and their comments. I did. They seem to be genuine posts by Joe MAGA Public. How representative they are in total is a reasonable question, but saying OANN would be more accurate is just a category error. OANN is trying to direct how people think in a particular direction, not reflect what they think for themselves.
itsbruce-
OANN is trying to direct how people think in a particular direction, not reflect what they think for themselves
This in spades. How anybody can consider a left of center newspaper with a fair amount of journalistic integrity to be similarly biased to a news channel that actively promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories and claims Trump won the election I don't know.
-
Hmmm. Quite offended/disappointed you and others think I’m championing the impartiality of OANN or something.
If you have a clear mind (I think you do) then (aswell a guardian reporting) go and critically read the actual media of/for that audience no?
My original point in succinct terms:
The Guardian is a relatively poor source for ‘what the right think’ whilst you can literally read 4chan > OANN > Fox for yourself and see the repositioning in real time.
Stonehedge
miro_o
Yes of course. I just think you could write that article almost any day of the last four years.
I know I’m cynical but that article is quite thin on substance. It’s reporting gossip and wouldn’t get published most places.