“Any little thing I can do to shut my eyes and plug my ears to ignore the truth, I will do.”
This you? They’re both criminals and you evading that isn’t going to change anything.
andrewthe95th@lemmy.world 1 year ago
My rule of thumb is that any youtube channel or news website that randomly capitalizes words in the headline isn’t worth paying attention to.
Dio@lemy.lol 1 year ago
andrewthe95th@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I could give a shit less about Hunter being indicted, I’m sure he broke the law and deserves jail. I’m merely pointing out that if the title of your report on that looks like it was written by fucking Ben Shapiro, then your organization clearly cares less about reporting the facts than it does pushing a narrative so I will turn to some place that doesn’t feel the need to spray paint glitter and a neon sign around the words they want you to notice.
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
I’m not defending this channel or this take, but it’s not random capitalisation. It’s called title case, you can learn to use it here: titlecaseconverter.com
I’m just genuinely baffled by this idea that title case is “random”. Like even if you didn’t know this style, you could figure it out by paying attention to the patterns.
Also, as a general rule when someone’s only critique is grammatical, they don’t have much to say. It reminds me of Colbert making fun of Trump’s hair and mannerisms and never actually talking about the obvious problems baked into the whole system. His shallow critique drove me away from liberal politics and into actual leftism.
Here’s a more substantive critique: Hunter Biden doesn’t matter; the only reason people paid so much attention to Trump’s corrupt family was because of the staggering pattern of flagrant corruption that surrounds him on all sides. Just pointing out that Hunter is a bit of a fuckup doesn’t achieve that, it’s just copycat fingerpointing.
A more substantive critique of the liberals is that they are functionally conservative and only exist to prop up the status quo by presenting a more polite and less offensive version of US powerbroking. But of course right wingers can’t use that critique because it casts them as the obvious bad guys that they are.
andrewthe95th@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I wasn’t critiquing grammar, I was critiquing the unprofessional practice of turning the headline into a clickbait title of a youtube video that would fit right in on a playlist titled “Triggered SJWs getting rekt vol. 630.” No legitimate news source would do that (case in point, the AP article you yourself linked). It’s obnoxious and is only good for outing the website as one with extremely poor journalistic standards and integrity.
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
Oh, I see. I thought you were referring to the post title.
Well, in that case the capitalisation is not random, it is done for emphasis. It may be a bit gauche but that is also not a substantive critique.
mosiacmango@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Its still a substantive critique.
The medium is the message. How information is conveyed is part of the information. Employing click bait and “guache” methods is part of an “appeal to emotion,” and argument that riles up the passions instead of convincing with reason. Someone presenting information coached in tools designed to inflame or incite should indeed be suspect if they are trying to pretend to be conveying largely “neutral” information like the news.