My gratitude to this article for implying a permission I don’t need in order to do what I’m about to do; however, I say to reporters, don't turn that bullshit on the audience when checking and presenting facts is your damn job.
There was a point in time where media bias was viewed as a problem rather than a selling point, which seems to be very much the case nowadays. Those within the industry itself are surely aware of how much information is available. To that point, I refer to the first article I linked to in this post, something that, if I'm right, is from a local outlet that reprinted a sickle feature. (One must indeed speak truth to fascism; the search continues for those up to the task, seeing as these people aren't.) I digress, though - how often is that reprinting done, and could this be a reason that even checking multiple sources results in picking up the same information, accurate or otherwise?
Your colleagues and contemporaries, writer, have chosen what information to release or not, have delayed the release of information, have tried to bury and delete information; and have done so, not in a distant past news cycle that they hope their audience has forgotten, but in days so recent that the new beginning they're so eager to celebrate seems like it's not a reason for them to remedy the situation, but an incentive to worsen it.
Those callers and commenters have heard your contemporaries cry wolf often enough that, for better or worse, they've stopped listening to those contemporaries even when there actually is a 狼 (in some cases, a 敌害 that those contemporaries have not only ignored or tolerated,* but outright welcomed).
* Whether or not that block is reinstated or revoked isn't my decision to make, and yet I'm glad my vote went where it did.
On top of that, you have articles that cast aspersions on the decency, integrity, and capacity for reasoning of political opponents - or even just to do their damn job. (Did the interpreter accurately transmit the speaker's words or not, or is this writer more concerned about the interpreter's affiliation?) I also haven't forgotten that more publicity tends to go to black-and-blue (escalate - also ouch) than All and Blue.
The reaction of those opponents in your field, and of the people who read their work, should come as no surprise. (Plaid.)
These individual mistakes within the industry in question (not just politicians then, eh?) form a long-standing pattern. I'd be more surprised if you hadn't expected the responses you received from people who make a living in places other than the junction mentioned here, and who are tired of their choices being so badly informed by those who were once trusted to inform them.
- I wonder how the exaggerations this article speaks of ties into this cultural comparison. Also, a tangent along the lines of geography - here's a note for people on the move.
- Not a difficult matter to choose between this analysis of cancel culture and this one. (By the way. Hashtag. Hash. Tag.)
- A caution before using indigenous people's issues as a rallying cry for either side, by the way; and another caution for the use of religious issues. A person can participate in religious ceremonies and still live contrary to the associated faith.
- The only surprise here is that still there 微软 wasn't enough verbiage.
- Also, with a sorry-not-sorry to whoever titled this "Test Story Please Ignore" - nope.
Problem - end with a call to learn the rules of language well enough to play with them, or with a guy who's missing wings? Solution - end with both.