Despite President Trump's promise of cuts, the federal government has spent about $220 billion more in his first 100 days than the same time period last year.
If you read this article and thought, “journalistic malpractice”, I think you gotta reset your understanding of what journalism is. They can’t just say “oh, this smells like bullshit so we’re going to write articles about how it’s bullshit”. If that’s what they did, then there is no difference between journalism and lemmy comments.
They have to actually research the facts surrounding the claims like a scientist would. Start from the assumption that what they’re saying is true, then follow the numbers to come to a conclusion. Now the conclusion is not based some feeling, it is based on actual data.
We can now say not only did it smell like bullshit, but thanks to these journalists we can identify exactly how it is bullshit.
Theyre saying that for the past six months every single news station and paper has been daily uploading stories about “doge cuts” and talking about how much musk was promising to reduce the budget and saying that it was all legitimate and exactly as they claimed. That’s what they’re pissed about.
This is the FIRST article to actually say “what if he’s actually full of shit? What if we looked into it and counted the money? Oh, turns out he’s full of shit and doing the opposite of reducing the budget, here’s what it actually cost.”
It is fucking April 30th. It’s been 100 days, they’ve spent 200 billion more dollars than normal, and this is the only report I’ve seen since the election questioning whether doge is a legitimate government office with the goals it claims. Thats what the poster is mad about. Not the one article doing journalism. The 7 million articles since October last year talking about “musk’s doge plans to cut 2 trillion from the deficit” that were literally propaganda.
Maybe. I was confused by their last comment that in no way acknowledged the point I made. This specific article is good journalism. But the commenter didn’t not acknowledge that.
The first bit where they said “accounting for it all is real journalism” was in reference to the posted article.
The original original comment didn’t say anything about the posted article but was lambasting the fact that most of the other publications don’t actually investigate the claims being made and instead just broadcast the claims as if they are legitimate on their face. Once the article we’re commenting under was brought up they agreed that the journalism there was good.
I had to go all the way to the top comment in the chain to figure out which reply you were talking about but yeah they agreed with you on the merits of this story and gave props
If you read this article and thought, “journalistic malpractice”, I think you gotta reset your understanding of what journalism is. They can’t just say “oh, this smells like bullshit so we’re going to write articles about how it’s bullshit”. If that’s what they did, then there is no difference between journalism and lemmy comments.
They have to actually research the facts surrounding the claims like a scientist would. Start from the assumption that what they’re saying is true, then follow the numbers to come to a conclusion. Now the conclusion is not based some feeling, it is based on actual data.
We can now say not only did it smell like bullshit, but thanks to these journalists we can identify exactly how it is bullshit.
Theyre saying that for the past six months every single news station and paper has been daily uploading stories about “doge cuts” and talking about how much musk was promising to reduce the budget and saying that it was all legitimate and exactly as they claimed. That’s what they’re pissed about.
This is the FIRST article to actually say “what if he’s actually full of shit? What if we looked into it and counted the money? Oh, turns out he’s full of shit and doing the opposite of reducing the budget, here’s what it actually cost.”
It is fucking April 30th. It’s been 100 days, they’ve spent 200 billion more dollars than normal, and this is the only report I’ve seen since the election questioning whether doge is a legitimate government office with the goals it claims. Thats what the poster is mad about. Not the one article doing journalism. The 7 million articles since October last year talking about “musk’s doge plans to cut 2 trillion from the deficit” that were literally propaganda.
Maybe. I was confused by their last comment that in no way acknowledged the point I made. This specific article is good journalism. But the commenter didn’t not acknowledge that.
The first bit where they said “accounting for it all is real journalism” was in reference to the posted article.
The original original comment didn’t say anything about the posted article but was lambasting the fact that most of the other publications don’t actually investigate the claims being made and instead just broadcast the claims as if they are legitimate on their face. Once the article we’re commenting under was brought up they agreed that the journalism there was good.
I had to go all the way to the top comment in the chain to figure out which reply you were talking about but yeah they agreed with you on the merits of this story and gave props