What they're doing is putting the lie in the headline, where lots of people read it, and burying the truth paragraphs down in the article. Because very few people click through to articles, but just see headlines, the impact is to leave a large chunk of the public with a false belief.
34
California greenhouse gas emissions decline across most sectors | The decrease in emissions took place even as the state’s economy continued to grow
(ww2.arb.ca.gov)
The cut in emissions is from 2021 to 2022 is small — 2.4%
11
The NYT repeats the lie in the headline, but buries the truth down in the article. The result is that people see the lie, and not the truth.
Very few people encountering an article on social media actually read it; something like 2% do so much as click through.
This pattern basically guarantees that a huge numbers of people will have a false belief.
It's equally weak because it's all bullshit. The problem is that the press isn't willing to assess truth on this kind of thing, and then center that.
Sulzburger too unfortunately.
The harm in "boys have access to these" is basically zero; they might occasionally use a pad to bandage a skinned knee or something.
Yes. A lot of book bans have been focused on books written by women and minorities.
Yeah. An editor checking the headline would help.
Probably not; hurricanes tend to move and break up once over land.
My understanding is that the plan is to use a mix of high-frequency-low-resolution imaging with less-frequent-higher-resolution images to pinpoint specific leak sources.
$5,000 was the most he asked for when he did a fundraiser for the Harris campaign on Monday
The incredibly high cost of running for President means that he'll be asking for more now though. Stinks that we have the system we do.
Oh, that's how they work: Apply directly to the forehead. /s