Is that the crossword company that runs a news themed side hustle?
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
593 points (96.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
5353 readers
2270 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
- !whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
- !best_of_mastodon@sh.itjust.works
- !curatedtwitter@sh.itjust.works
- !curatedtumblr@sh.itjust.works
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Also the book sales reporting people.
They better get a right wing nut to write an op ed on what happened...
A facebook screenshot within a Twitter screenshot
A threads screenshot inside a bluesky screenshot?
It was important to add the commentary "Ouch." The post really made no sense without it. ~/s~
Fixed it
It just keeps getting better.
Needs someone on Tumblr saying how they can't breathe
Incraption
Why would they publicly announce to the world that they don't understand how to use a platform that 12 year olds are using?
They know exactly what they're doing. Their editors have decided that American democracy is a "partisan issue" and have decided to cover it as such, meaning they won't "take sides" over it.
For what it’s worth that is still taking a side
Well, yeah, I would agree with that. The author also does a good job of pointing out how that's bullshit, and gives several examples of ways that the Times is covering the candidates differently, demonstrating their hypocrisy. (They've been laundering right wing ideas into mainstream public consciousness for decades now, anyway.)
It is still shocking to see the editor just come out and say, in plain English, that the very concept of democracy is a partisan issue, and that they refuse to weigh in on it.
That deserves its own post.
Go for it. I'm not sure which forum it belongs in.
Good to know it isn't just brain dead social media users who don't understand the difference between neutrally reporting on facts and favoring both parties equally.
What are they referring to with nytimes? That needs to actually be true to be an actual burn.
They're referring to the Times' editorial position not to refer to trump as a convicted felon, a rapist, a fraud, indicted for crimes against national security, a russion colluder, and many many other things which may harm his electability, should republiQans ever stop being batshit insane.