you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

I got through about the first four paragraphs, and there were obvious bad-faith Republican attacks. To paraphrase and edit:

"This fraud's total potential revenue [over an unstated number of years] was greater than the state spent on prisons [for a single year]."

No objections to most of the rest of what you said, but this article is definitely a Republican slant pretending to be impartial.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    If you check out the author’s bio, he doesn’t sound like a Republican sympathizer to me. You pick a tiny bit of incoherence in the article and dismiss it entirely? You’re the one who sounds like they’ve got a slant. You didn’t even finish the piece. You sound like you’re dismissing it simply because you don’t like what it’s saying. That’s bad information consumption.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    I didnt dismiss it entirely. I merely noted that the part I read includes a solid example of the biggest complaint against the grey lady over the past several years : that they parrott Republican attacks without challenge or clarification.

    The part I paraphrased wasn't "incoherence" -- it's an analogy specially chosen to outrage and motivate Republican voters, which was printed "above the fold" and may well have gone unchallenged in the whole rest of the article.

    And while the bylined author presumably as you say a wholesome journalist who would never cause such distortion, they're also an employee and not responsible or empowered to edit, format, or headline their work.

  • source
  • parent