[jtorsella]

Oh you’re right - sorry, I forgot that everyone knows that the key ideas of the article are correct so they don’t require any evidence.

To drop the sarcastic frame - the article either argues something that could be incorrect or it makes a meaningless argument. If it’s arguing something that could be otherwise then it needs to give evidence for the things it’s saying. It doesn’t and treats everything it’s saying as completely self-evident. But these are empirical assertions that need evidence to be proven true or false, and the article stands out in using zero evidence. Personally, I think that this inadvertently reveals the disdain for news is really part of a broader undervaluing of evidence in general, but I don’t think that’s provable really.

[dr_bash]

I see you edited your comment.

the article is an opinion, like your earlier comment, there is no need to cite anything or be to pedantic.

As a native English speaker try to simplify the wording on your arguments a bit. They are somwhat highfalutin and a little convoluted. Your message is fairly simple, no reason to add extra complexity… best case you confuse some esl people, worst case you seem like hot air.

“The finest language is mostly made up of simple unimposing words” - George Eliot.