[The strategy] has its limits. It’s designed for casual news consumers, not experts or those attempting to do deep research. A reporter working on an investigative story or trying to synthesize complex information will have to go deep. But for someone just trying to figure out a basic fact, it’s helpful not to get bogged down.
This is just a way of saying don't believe everything you read online.
That's the reason we're seeing this opinion piece at all; you're right. Context is key. I was just pointing out that the heart of his message is fairly innocuous, in order to undermine the hyperbolic headline.
It's not hyperbolic. It's what they're saying. They're training their audience to ignore sources of news they disapprove of and are outside their "consensus". It's literally Orwell's Ignorance Is Strength.
This is just a way of saying don't believe everything you read online.
It's saying "trust us but not anyone else".
It's weak tea, but it's all they've got.
That's the reason we're seeing this opinion piece at all; you're right. Context is key. I was just pointing out that the heart of his message is fairly innocuous, in order to undermine the hyperbolic headline.
It's not hyperbolic. It's what they're saying. They're training their audience to ignore sources of news they disapprove of and are outside their "consensus". It's literally Orwell's Ignorance Is Strength.
I'm agreeing with you, comrade. Lower your shields. :picard-pointing: You're not on reddit. :meow-hug:
Your characterization is on point. I was describing the headline of the NYT article in relation to its actual content.