285
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
285 points (96.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7154 readers
260 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
You don't get it. I agree with all that stuff you wrote, I'm not arguing any of that. But quoting a random Redditor in any way in a news article that is not about Reddit is dumb, and contributes to the dumbing down of news. For all we know, that "Reddit User" is probably a bot. The article would have been much better if they left it out entirely.
No, I totally understand what you're saying and agree with you. But from my perspective, it sounds like a lazy critique of the article not having the info you wanted when it's in an article linked in the first paragraph.
Maybe I'm out of pocket here, but I'm so used to people criticizing articles because they didn't bother to read them/linked articles that directly answered the complaints provided. I definitely agree that they should have included it in the actual article (or better yet, if OP just linked to the guardian article directly), I just get frustrated seeing people complain about lack of information when it's literally just a click away.
But I never complained that the article didn't have the right information. I am complaining because they are presenting valid information alongside bullshit social media information. And this plays directly into the fascist playbook: my opinion is just as valid as your knowledge.
I'm willing to burn Karma (or whatever we call that here) to point out when I see shit like this.