Lots of content! But a weakness in the presentation, alas.
¶ 2: OAN is “the Trumpiest of the pro-Trump propaganda TV channels.”
¶4: “Put bluntly, OAN is Trump cult TV.” Also, OAN “doesn’t have a coherent identity beyond Trump worship and owning the libs.”
But then, ¶7: ‘Worst of all is a report from the Wall Street Journal that doesn’t even mention OAN’s reputation for spreading conspiracy theories or misinformation, but instead describes it as a “pro-Trump channel.”’
But that’s exactly how you’ve spent six paragraphs describing it! In ¶1 you tell us that conservatism is supposed to be something more dignified than spreading conspiracy theories and promoting a cult of personality,” but after that you just list pro-Trump content and pro-Trump conspiracy theories.
I mean, you’re *correct*, of course, but it’s a jolt to this reader to see the WSJ article called out as ‘the worst” for referring to OAN only as “pro-Trump” when that’s a fair summary of your own immediately-preceding description. The only non-Trump misinformation you’ve cited at this point is OAN’s spreading of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, and I think a lot of political readers see those as pro-Trump conspiracy theories too, in the DeSantis sense of “prolonging the pandemic hurts Trump’s opponents.”
Maybe it’s just me, but it brought my reading to a halt and I thought I should say something.
I've always wondered how CNN figures it's reporting in an unbiased fashion when it is ultimately answerable to such a comms giant as AT&T. I'm sure all their journos *feel* as though they're reporting in an unbiased fashion, but do the editors/producers truly allow that??
So much packed up so nicely today.
Lots of content! But a weakness in the presentation, alas.
¶ 2: OAN is “the Trumpiest of the pro-Trump propaganda TV channels.”
¶4: “Put bluntly, OAN is Trump cult TV.” Also, OAN “doesn’t have a coherent identity beyond Trump worship and owning the libs.”
But then, ¶7: ‘Worst of all is a report from the Wall Street Journal that doesn’t even mention OAN’s reputation for spreading conspiracy theories or misinformation, but instead describes it as a “pro-Trump channel.”’
But that’s exactly how you’ve spent six paragraphs describing it! In ¶1 you tell us that conservatism is supposed to be something more dignified than spreading conspiracy theories and promoting a cult of personality,” but after that you just list pro-Trump content and pro-Trump conspiracy theories.
I mean, you’re *correct*, of course, but it’s a jolt to this reader to see the WSJ article called out as ‘the worst” for referring to OAN only as “pro-Trump” when that’s a fair summary of your own immediately-preceding description. The only non-Trump misinformation you’ve cited at this point is OAN’s spreading of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, and I think a lot of political readers see those as pro-Trump conspiracy theories too, in the DeSantis sense of “prolonging the pandemic hurts Trump’s opponents.”
Maybe it’s just me, but it brought my reading to a halt and I thought I should say something.
I've always wondered how CNN figures it's reporting in an unbiased fashion when it is ultimately answerable to such a comms giant as AT&T. I'm sure all their journos *feel* as though they're reporting in an unbiased fashion, but do the editors/producers truly allow that??
Republicans are great at redefining words.. very Orwellian. “Woke executives” Woke is bad, progressive is bad. Upsidedown-ism