Just to start: Why do you use 'thou' and 'art' and 'hast' in your typing? I don't mean that as a veiled insult, I'm honestly curious. It's a rather uncommon practice nowadays.
Anyway:
My comment was replying to your comment comparing infowars to CNN. If you're familiar at all with how to spot manipulative headlines, infowars is absolutely inundated with them. The articles aren't much better (often worse). Lots of words which are meant to make you emotional/angry/outraged mixed in with key pieces of information from which very unreasonable conclusions are drawn.
If you already agree with what they're saying, then it will feel like a great source of news since they are supporting your existing views. If you emotionally distance yourself from that site's "reporting", it reeks of bullshit. Most of it at least.
There are a few articles which are fairly neutral (but still are very clearly pushing for an emotional response/subtly attacking viewpoints inconsistent with the site's ideology, as a lot of sites do). The, distressingly short, article on the Eiffel tower stunt by greenpeace activists for example. As it happens, other news sources which are less hilariously biased covered the same story in much the same way, but with more information and fewer strategically placed quotes meant to imply the official report is dishonest.
21
@rphb
Just to start: Why do you use 'thou' and 'art' and 'hast' in your typing? I don't mean that as a veiled insult, I'm honestly curious. It's a rather uncommon practice nowadays.
Anyway:
My comment was replying to your comment comparing infowars to CNN. If you're familiar at all with how to spot manipulative headlines, infowars is absolutely inundated with them. The articles aren't much better (often worse). Lots of words which are meant to make you emotional/angry/outraged mixed in with key pieces of information from which very unreasonable conclusions are drawn.
If you already agree with what they're saying, then it will feel like a great source of news since they are supporting your existing views. If you emotionally distance yourself from that site's "reporting", it reeks of bullshit. Most of it at least.
There are a few articles which are fairly neutral (but still are very clearly pushing for an emotional response/subtly attacking viewpoints inconsistent with the site's ideology, as a lot of sites do). The, distressingly short, article on the Eiffel tower stunt by greenpeace activists for example. As it happens, other news sources which are less hilariously biased covered the same story in much the same way, but with more information and fewer strategically placed quotes meant to imply the official report is dishonest.