We went over this the other day, but just to reiterate, the problem we have with their decision to publish Dan Fagan is not that he writes opinions we do not like. The problem is he writes bullshit opinions constructed from deliberate lies about the subject of his opining. Giving him a platform on the editorial page, in turn, sets the boundaries of subsequent discusssion to encompass his bullshit as an acceptable premise. This generates more letters and opinions based on that bullshit which the paper is then only too happy to print and highlight on their web page thus reifying the bullshit further.
None of this is an accident. It is a deliberate editorial choice which reveals the preferred inclination of the paper's management which is clearly quite favorable toward bullshit.
For example, last week, this happened.
Congratulations to the Daily Georges on 1) running a syndicated Rich Lowry column downplaying "hysteria" over climate change and then 2) printing two different reaction letters in order to "bothsides" the hell out of climate change pic.twitter.com/3x33rpDkaW— skooks (@skooks) September 7, 2019
Bullshit. It's just one side of an irresolvable "civil" debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment