The article is written by a republican and the article is about why Biden is bad. The author uses the term "left-wing" as a pejorative. It's kinda funny that nobody in this whole thread read the article and everyone is shadowboxing with a misinterpretation of the headline.
I honestly don't really bother clicking on any American political commentary articles because I know they'll be garbage. The only thing that surprised me this time is I've always thought of The Hill as some milquetoast lib site.
We've had posts every day this week about how you can't accurately judge an article by the article's headline, example: passive language vs active language.
The article is not written on the premise that Biden is moving left. The article is about how the author is scared that Biden is going to take your guns and take your free speech, and be a "climate czar" (actual quote).
I read the article because I also expected it to be written by a liberal about Biden moving left and I wanted to familiarize myself with what narratives that liberals are going to use in the upcoming election. To my surprise, the article was not about that and everyone in this thread at the time was responding to the article as if the article was in support for Biden, including the OP.
If we are truly to believe that the media manufacturers consent, which it does, then it is important to understand in what ways the media is manufacturing consent. It is important to understand this so that you can combat the manufactured narrative and effectively communicate that to the people who have accepted the manufactured narrative.
Just like Biden
The article is written by a republican and the article is about why Biden is bad. The author uses the term "left-wing" as a pejorative. It's kinda funny that nobody in this whole thread read the article and everyone is shadowboxing with a misinterpretation of the headline.
I honestly don't really bother clicking on any American political commentary articles because I know they'll be garbage. The only thing that surprised me this time is I've always thought of The Hill as some milquetoast lib site.
Why would anybody waste time reading an article with the premise Biden was about to pivot to the left.
It doesn't matter what side the author is on, they obviously have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
Similarly the article "why shitting your pants is good and cool" probably wouldn't get a lot of in depth engagement
We've had posts every day this week about how you can't accurately judge an article by the article's headline, example: passive language vs active language.
The article is not written on the premise that Biden is moving left. The article is about how the author is scared that Biden is going to take your guns and take your free speech, and be a "climate czar" (actual quote).
I read the article because I also expected it to be written by a liberal about Biden moving left and I wanted to familiarize myself with what narratives that liberals are going to use in the upcoming election. To my surprise, the article was not about that and everyone in this thread at the time was responding to the article as if the article was in support for Biden, including the OP.
If we are truly to believe that the media manufacturers consent, which it does, then it is important to understand in what ways the media is manufacturing consent. It is important to understand this so that you can combat the manufactured narrative and effectively communicate that to the people who have accepted the manufactured narrative.