After a weekend of whoppers about X and fighting Mark Zuckerberg, the press should take a more skeptical approach

  • _bug0ut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think in a lot of cases, it’s less about them having a lot of money and more about how they’re able to effect change using that money or the power/influence associated with that money. Unfortunately, this can often happen at a relatively large scale, like by upending a popular social media platform or disrupting the automobile industry (for good or ill) or discussing futuristic public transportation ideas to take the wind out of the sails of more realistic/attainable projects and efforts.

    All things considered, I wouldn’t mind hearing less about these people - a lot less. We’re well into mud slinging territory and some of these dickheads absolutely thrive on that. I’m sure the worst of them feel egged on when the media talks about them so they say or do more crazy shit very publicly to draw attention from fanboys and detractors alike. Call it a vicious cycle… or a hyperloop or something.

    • stopthatgirl7@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I decided to stopped posting things about him after he made that laughable announcement that he’d pay the legal bills of anyone fired because of their tweets. He did it purely for attention, and I realized I don’t want to help give it to him anymore.

      I made an exception for this article because it’s not about him, but about how writers can’t just keep uncritically covering every stupid thing he says.

      • _bug0ut@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        fair enough and fwiw, that’s what i was kind of echoing. “we’re” in mud slinging territory as a culture, but journalists/opinion-piece-writers/whatever are massive drivers of it.