OT : FUCK the police

[JuTMSY4]

I'm not saying HuffPo is some beacon of unbiased journalism - it's a tabloid.

Welp - now you've gone full circle.

[noguano]

- it just fails to mention that the gas is harmless.

.

Cough....heh heh

u guys check out my new dye job? The pic won't just open in the thread.

[slag]

I'm far from dense and I had already read that headline before you posted it.

Oh no ... Drudge did a "Jerruh" ... what a dick!

More significantly ... how does it promote an agenda ... and what agenda?

[TerpEagle]

I'm far from dense and I had already read that headline before you posted it.

Oh no ... Drudge did a "Jerruh" ... what a dick!

More significantly ... how does it promote an agenda ... and what agenda?

You're not being dense? Matt Drudge has a strong bias and agenda to report/comment based on that bias. Just like Ariana Huffington, Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck.

His name is on the front of the site. His bias and agenda therefore are linked to the site. Perhaps you can disconnect Matt Drudge from the Drudge Report, but that's not the reason the site is popular and followed. By doing so you've become the exception to the general reader.

There's nothing wrong with the fact that you try to oversee his bias but your arguments are being made from that point of view and it's the minority view.

My issue with Drudge, philosophical differences aside, is that he misleads - as do most tabloids. But you also like the NY Post so maybe tabloid journalism is just your cup of tea. It's not really mine.

[slag]

The dense person here is you.

WHAT IS THE FUCKING AGENDA OF MISLEADING ABOUT GAS IN THE SUBWAY?

[TerpEagle]

Welp - now you've gone full circle.

Have I previously defended HuffPo as the beacon of journalism?

It has its uses and some of its articles and opinion pieces aren't bad but I don't use it for investigative journalistic information. Even if it does investigate more than Drudge.

[TerpEagle]

The dense person here is you.

WHAT IS THE FUCKING AGENDA OF MISLEADING ABOUT GAS IN THE SUBWAY?

Well, it's harmless gas first of all. A simple adjective or accurate description goes a long way when someone wants to make a point. And it's a study to better understand the fluid dynamics of a gas release. Attack drill is a stretch of a synonym.

For example:

China shoots rockets over US air space vs. China launches space shuttle into orbit.

They're both saying the same thing right? No difference in how a reader might interpret those statements?

[slag]

The headline identifies it's a drill ... by the fucking police ... the fact that the gas was harmless and was not shown to be in the headline is not even remotely close to suggesting that China is invading US airspace with rockets as a right leaning fear monger.

[TerpEagle]

The headline identifies it's a drill ... by the fucking police ... the fact that the gas was harmless and was not shown to be in the headline is not even remotely close to suggesting that China is invading US airspace with rockets as a right leaning fear monger.

If someone came to your house and said we're releasing gas into the neighborhood. You'd be ok with that? You'd assume that it would be harmless without question?

Also, I didn't say invading US air space. I said over US air space. Why are you twisting my words? Wasn't my meaning (while ambiguous) clear enough for you?

Grammar - crazy shit huh?

[slag]

Your idiotic suggesting that the headline is equivalent to releasing gas in my neighborhood still hasn't addressed how this furthers a right wing agenda.

The right wing like the po po.

Not to mention ... it would incite a click through that would immediately lead to a headline that shows it was harmless.

As for your weak ass grammer bullshit ... Kelly Green is impressed ... I'm not.

[TerpEagle]

And you're idiotic statement about releasing gas in the neighborhood still hasn't addressed how this furthers a right wing agenda.

The right wing like the po po.

As for your weak ass grammer bullshit ... Kelly Green is impressed ... I'm not.

Obviously you're not impressed - you missed my meaning when it was so clear.

As for your simplified version of the "right-wing" agenda. I'll bet there are plenty of L(l)ibertarians out there and freedom loving Americans that don't like any form of government control - including paramilitary armed forces that operate on the stolen income of citizens.

Let alone the fact it's in NYC, a city-state run by a tyrannical nanny.

[stjoebirdsfan]

. . .My issue with Drudge, philosophical differences aside, is that he misleads - as do most tabloids. But you also like the NY Post so maybe tabloid journalism is just your cup of tea. It's not really mine.

You've posted Gawker articles here quasi frequently. Heres how they covered the story:

NYC's Simulated Toxic Gas Attack Begins Today

http://gizmodo.com/nycs-simulated-to...oday-718976516

They used the words "toxic" and "attack" in their headline.

[TerpEagle]

Your idiotic suggesting that the headline is equivalent to releasing gas in my neighborhood still hasn't addressed how this furthers a right wing agenda.

The right wing like the po po.

Not to mention ... it would incite a click through that would immediately lead to a headline that shows it was harmless.

As for your weak ass grammer bullshit ... Kelly Green is impressed ... I'm not.

The point is - it's willfully and unnecessarily ambiguous. I'd say more than right wing or left wing, Drudge's agenda is to incite. That type of headline incites people because it causes fear and/or a reactionary response with no actual evidence.

[slag]

Yeah ... what a clever guy you are ... you're as tricky as the nefarious Drudge with his libertarian-rousing headline.

[slag]

Yeah ... the reactionary response is to click your mouse and realize you've been duped.