A good New York Times piece on Portland nevertheless demonstrates how the conventions of objective reporting fail to accurately capture the bad faith driving pro-Trump propaganda.
A good New York Times piece on Portland nevertheless demonstrates how the conventions of objective reporting fail to accurately capture the bad faith driving pro-Trump propaganda.
I stopped reading at the part where they say provocateur is the wrong word and how using the wrong word diminishes the overall piece.
After all, these people are not propagandists. They don’t spread hate as a means to an end. Hate and xenophobia is not a tool in their arsenal. It’s not a “take it or leave it” proposition.
It’s crazy to paint maga as a bunch of calculated leaders who only care about procedural theories and abstract policy, and it’s just their followers who believe the hype.
And because the author used the wrong word I guess that means this article is overall worse for it.
Edit: and the aggressive headline! I guess if their editor used the wrong words then the article must be worse than I thought.