I'm still not seeing the edit, but honestly Fox News viewers seeing CBS as substantively representing the left in any capacity is a large part of the problem here. Fortunately not everyone who matters believes only Fox News and nothing else.
The edit was "by Fox News viewers" which was previously implicit. To them these are hard left, but to moderates and the left they aren't. It is a matter of perspective.
> but honestly Fox News viewers seeing CBS as substantively representing the left in any capacity is a large part of the problem here.
This is something I agree with and is actually the crux of my post.
Apparently, given how many downvotes I have, you aren't alone. Given that I'm agreeing with a lot of people that are arguing with me, I'm pretty sure it was my messaging. I think part of that is that since we are so politicized and language requires us to fill in parts that because I tried to dampen it to those on the right that it came off as supporting them.
Pretty much my point was: this links to only stuff on the left and so it gives the right an easy target to point to to continue with their claim (which I believe is false) that the left media is trying to control the people.
Yeah, except those aren't left wing sites. The problem is not the lack of balance, and I think your words keep making it seem like it is. There aren't reliable conservative sources on these issues, and the sources that are linked are all moderate. At this point conservatives will pretty much call anything or anyone that disagrees with them leftist, so it doesn't really matter what sources you put there so long as they're reflecting anything close to the truth.
I think it’s more fair to characterize them as corporatist and neoconservative/neoliberal. If the mainstream media were actually left-wing they would be propagandizing for Bernie Sanders. Instead they’re propagandizing in favor of old-guard politicians like Mitt Romney and Nancy Pelosi. But no matter how you slice it, it’s still propaganda.
I agree with the parent commenter that this will only backfire, likely causing the opposite of intended effect on undecided voters. Tech companies like Twitter are not in a position to play arbiters on what is factual and what isn’t. And I think it’s really dangerous both for people to expect tech companies to assume this mantle and also to expect them to do a good (or honest) job of it.
I'm not sure why you think there's an intended effect here other than "maybe get a few people who are more on the fence to read something real and make it look like Twitter is Doing Something TM." I would hardly be surprised if it succeeded at those things.
“The facts” on mail-in ballots are mostly opinions though. It’s presumptuous of a tech company to insert themselves into public discourse to correct what they perceive as wrongthink, and it invites a dangerous situation where a few tech companies can enforce discourse that suits their political biases. Just because people may agree with them in this case doesn’t make it a good idea long term. To me this looks like a slippery slope into fascism.
The facts about voter fraud aren’t opinions, though, and the fact is that it’s extremely rare. What reason do we have to expect that mail-in ballots will make it common to the extent it influences an election?
>> The issue here is that everything here is considered the hard left of the media by Fox viewers.
Maybe the edit here makes the statement clearer because before it was implicit.