• DaveNa
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    And this is lemmy, a propaganda platform. That site cited as news. First source, no link. 2nd source, another “news website.” 3rd source, Twitter. Half the article, opinion. OK. I’ll see myself out, thank you very much.

    • Machinist3359@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dangerous to think you’re more media literate than you are.

      1. Not linking a source

      Very common for reports or scientific articles, where a sharable link is not readily available. Take it up with the city council who received the report being slow. The claims are sourced, and that source is credible, that’s what matters.

      1. “News website”

      Aka, a website you don’t know. Nola.com is a reputable local site, but that hardly matters here because the link is backing up a matter of public record— the previous FR ban was reversed.

      1. Link to Twitter

      It’s funny, what representatives say publicly is indeed newsworthy. When such statements happen on Twitter, you link to Twitter. Shocking, I know.

      1. Opinions

      Maybe you haven’t read a news article before, but providing the opinions of both sides of an issue is common practice, so that the reader has context and can consider their own position

    • scottywh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Accusing a site you’re participating in of being a “propaganda platform” is a new strategy… Let’s see how it works out for them, Cotton…