|
|
|
|
|
by tinco
1445 days ago
|
|
It's a Wikipedia link with 7 references that is utterly neutrally formulated. If you think that's even close to how Fox News presents their abhorrent lies you can count yourself lucky to have not watched it ever. In the meanwhile you apparently hold an opinion that is perfectly in line with the argument of the parent that you somehow assume is in support of Republican/regressive politics for no good reason. If you've got a better example of a SPAC that funded internet trolls you could just post a single Wikipedia link to that instead of making vague statements about slant. There's one thing that the republicans are right about, and that's that Wikipedia, HN and most of reddit are biased against them, and that's because they're biased towards the truth and the whole republican platform is based around denying reality. |
|
> If you've got a better example of a SPAC that funded internet trolls you could just post a single Wikipedia link to that instead of making vague statements about slant.
Sure, let me introduce you to the Willkies [0] and anti-abortion PACs [1]. Both examples of people pushing their issue opinions into the public square (with doctored content and a lot of money I might add) or directly into getting people elected to make policies they'd like.
> reality is biased against republicans
100% agree. My only thing here was taking HRC's campaign totally out of context. This is how US politics works since Citizens United (ironically also a case where a group of people wanted to release a super negative video about her in the political ad blackout period [3]).
0: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/fetal-photos-jac...
1: https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs...
2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary:_The_Movie