Imagine having to go to a site called "giantfreakinrobot" to read an article that is surprisingly well-balanced. They don't take shots at Carano or Disney. When they editorialize, they use markers like "I suspect" and "might." It's fairly clear when they are offering a supposition versus a statement of fact. I've never heard of the author, but they are clearly better at "journalism'ing" than Ivy Leage graduates who are paid millions of dollars a year to "journalism" on TV. As far as the actual subject of this article, if anyone actually thinks Disney will apply the standard in a neutral manner, I have some magic beans for sale. Remember, this is not actually a change in policy at all, since Disney gets to decide what constitutes a controversial subject. Expect the norm, which is for them to coddle and protect those they deem worthy.
thumb_up29thumb_downchat_bubble4

More from Sinistre

The site is owned by the Redstone billionaires (who own CBS/Viacom through National Amusements). "Varying degrees of controversy..." I guess you could say that. One guy took a vacation. One woman told the truth. The other guy killed 40,000 people (I guess Comcast thinks mass murder is a hoot). Is the Holocaust funny now, or is there a cutoff to the number of deaths that can be hilarious?
5.4k views · Feb 21st
First off... 😂🤣😂🤣 "The highest risk option is indoor seating without any precautions such as reduced capacity or social distancing." Like every article on Earth written by these corporate clowns, they fail to do the job of an actual Free Press (because they aren't one) and give you the information you need to make an informed decision. If they told you the actual number your risk is increased, you might have an epiphany and realize it's all nonsense. I read an article a couple months ago with a direct link to CDC data and it was either 1.6% or 2.6% for dine-in restaurants. It's the Chicken Little media conditioning you to be afraid. It's also a great lesson in how they manipulate people, in general. Had this been an article about a restaurant that required a specific kind of mask, they would have cheered and been supportive. They would not feel the need to challenge the subject of the article with opposing science, as they did in this one. That standard should be equally applied to all articles.
241 views · Feb 20th

More from Sinistre

The site is owned by the Redstone billionaires (who own CBS/Viacom through National Amusements). "Varying degrees of controversy..." I guess you could say that. One guy took a vacation. One woman told the truth. The other guy killed 40,000 people (I guess Comcast thinks mass murder is a hoot). Is the Holocaust funny now, or is there a cutoff to the number of deaths that can be hilarious?
5.4k views · Feb 21st
First off... 😂🤣😂🤣 "The highest risk option is indoor seating without any precautions such as reduced capacity or social distancing." Like every article on Earth written by these corporate clowns, they fail to do the job of an actual Free Press (because they aren't one) and give you the information you need to make an informed decision. If they told you the actual number your risk is increased, you might have an epiphany and realize it's all nonsense. I read an article a couple months ago with a direct link to CDC data and it was either 1.6% or 2.6% for dine-in restaurants. It's the Chicken Little media conditioning you to be afraid. It's also a great lesson in how they manipulate people, in general. Had this been an article about a restaurant that required a specific kind of mask, they would have cheered and been supportive. They would not feel the need to challenge the subject of the article with opposing science, as they did in this one. That standard should be equally applied to all articles.
241 views · Feb 20th