• dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You don’t get it. I agree with all that stuff you wrote, I’m not arguing any of that. But quoting a random Redditor in any way in a news article that is not about Reddit is dumb, and contributes to the dumbing down of news. For all we know, that “Reddit User” is probably a bot. The article would have been much better if they left it out entirely.

    • Unaware7013@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, I totally understand what you’re saying and agree with you. But from my perspective, it sounds like a lazy critique of the article not having the info you wanted when it’s in an article linked in the first paragraph.

      Maybe I’m out of pocket here, but I’m so used to people criticizing articles because they didn’t bother to read them/linked articles that directly answered the complaints provided. I definitely agree that they should have included it in the actual article (or better yet, if OP just linked to the guardian article directly), I just get frustrated seeing people complain about lack of information when it’s literally just a click away.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But I never complained that the article didn’t have the right information. I am complaining because they are presenting valid information alongside bullshit social media information. And this plays directly into the fascist playbook: my opinion is just as valid as your knowledge.

        I’m willing to burn Karma (or whatever we call that here) to point out when I see shit like this.