Boycott for spreading misinformation
-
wrote on 1 Feb 2021, 14:06 last edited by George K 2 Jan 2021, 14:37
-
wrote on 1 Feb 2021, 14:20 last edited by Mik 2 Jan 2021, 14:20
Lies, damn lies. I suspect it will rest on a Clintonesque 'what is is' argument.
-
wrote on 1 Feb 2021, 14:22 last edited by
I think it's pretty cut and dried...
-
wrote on 1 Feb 2021, 14:29 last edited by
Can you link the tweets instead of images? So we can read the stories?
-
wrote on 1 Feb 2021, 14:39 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Boycott for spreading misinformation:
Can you link the tweets instead of images? So we can read the stories?
My bad. I thought I was linking tweets, not images. Images posted correctly in original post.
Also...
-
wrote on 1 Feb 2021, 14:44 last edited by
The WaPo editorial:
How to get the Fox News monster under control? I do not believe the government should have any role in regulating what can and can’t be said on the air, although I often hear that proposed. That would be a cure worse than the disease. But let’s not count on the hope that the Fox-controlling Murdochs will develop a conscience.
No, the only answer is to speak the language that the bigwigs at Fox will understand: Ratings. Advertising dollars. Profit.
Corporations that advertise on Fox News should walk away, and citizens who care about the truth should demand that they do so (in addition to trying to steer their friends and relatives away from the network).“Columns reflect the views of the writer and do not speak for The Post,” Shani George, the paper’s director of communications, said in a statement. “Margaret is a columnist, and like all of our columnists, she has wide leeway to express personal opinions and apply her own analysis. She did not call for a boycott in this column or in her tweets. As a columnist, though, she would be free to make that argument if she chose.”
The Washington Post's director of communications seems unclear on the concept of "Corporations that advertise on Fox News should walk away, and citizens who care about the truth should demand that they do so (in addition to trying to steer their friends and relatives away from the network)."
-
wrote on 1 Feb 2021, 15:36 last edited by
Is it an opinion piece from the opinion pages?
If so, then we can easily find other news sources that often print or tell opinions that may not be agreed with by the parent company. Sometimes, they do that because they want to create controversy.
-
Is it an opinion piece from the opinion pages?
If so, then we can easily find other news sources that often print or tell opinions that may not be agreed with by the parent company. Sometimes, they do that because they want to create controversy.
wrote on 2 Feb 2021, 17:56 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Boycott for spreading misinformation:
Is it an opinion piece from the opinion pages?
If so, then we can easily find other news sources that often print or tell opinions that may not be agreed with by the parent company. Sometimes, they do that because they want to create controversy.
Doesn't that basically mean that they will spread misinformation for other purpose (clicks, political propaganda, fomenting social unrest, etc.)? A corporation does not get absolution because they only allowed the spread of misinformation on their platform.