Post by johneppstein on Mar 24, 2020 15:25:13 GMT -6
Certainly a solid case to be made for what you're arguing.
It is highly irresponsible to spread uncorroborated political propaganda masquerading as real scienific data in a situation such as this.
This is a good example of the strong case for fact-checking of media purporting to provide "news".
That USED to be the standard until a few years ago.
I guess I'd say that anyone that's gonna take the word of a political operative over scientists and docs isn't likely to have their mind changed by any amount of good data and certainly not from taking down the political operative's blog. What it does do is pump (hot) air into the "CENSORSHIP!" trope, ill-founded as it may be.
My point is that so-called "scientific news" from political operative shouldn't be allowed up in the first place. And up until quite recently it was not.
Such crap was relegated to the "Op-ED" page, where it belongs.
There's nothing wrong with expressing an opinion. That's everybody's right as protected by The Constitution.
There is something VERY, VERY wrong with passing it off as "fact" in alleged "news" media. That constitutes fraud at the least and is probably technically illegal, if anybody in position to do anything about it actually cared.
If you're HONEST you tell people when you're expressing an opinion. Only fraudsters and propagandists present lies as "fact".
"Substitute your lies for fact
I see right through your plastic mac." -Pete Townshend