Well if no one pays "attention" then no one may tell another that a news source they were misled into trusting may be full of shit. It may seem obnoxious to point this out, but is potentially worthwhile
Well if no one pays "attention" then no one may tell another that a news source they were misled into trusting may be full of shit. It may seem obnoxious to point this out, but is potentially worthwhile
I think every mainstream news source is going to publish some articles that qualify as being full of shit. I appreciate a lot of what The Guardian puts out, but I accept they publish rubbish too. If you did find anyone who believes in the Guardian religiously, this probably isn't the article that's going to break the spell for them.
Anyway, I should have archived the article as Phila did.
I think *every* mainstream news source is going to publish some articles that qualify as being full of shit. I appreciate a lot of what The Guardian puts out, but I accept they publish rubbish too. If you did find anyone who believes in the Guardian religiously, this probably isn't the article that's going to break the spell for them.
Anyway, I should have archived the article as Phila did.
Anyway, I should have archived the article as Phila did.
Bad smallpond, flicks nose bad
>Anyway, I should have archived the article as Phila did.
Bad smallpond, *flicks nose* bad
I see criticism as a form of attention.