I never claimed to be. But clearly I can understand the title and I understand that FT is reporting on a study that somebody else did.
It seems not everyone can work that out.
FT is just reporting the news. It’s unfortunate that the news offends you, but they’re not really obliged to put out news that tickles your schadenfreude.
Here’s the thing. You have twice insinuated I don’t understand the news, or how it works. , it demeans us both.
I feel insulted and you come across as a smug prick.
I was just saying that different papers spin the news differently. There are no papers in the UK that lack bias.
There is no such thing as “just reporting the news”. The very selection of what you report onis the news.
We could get into an academic debate, if you want. We could wheel out Sontag and Marshall McLuhan. We could go over all the basic first year undergraduate lessons in journalistic practice, or we could just drop this and move on.
I suspect you won’t be able to restrain yourself though. You’ll have to point out for a third time that you think some people are incapable of being able to understand things that you, yourself, seem to be the one struggling with.
I’m sorry this news upset you. But it is the news. Facts shouldn’t upset you so much. No wonder you seem pretty stupid if reading news articles and studies is an upsetting thing for you.
4.) Fuck you you arrogant prick. You are being willfully ignorant and deliberately misinterpreting what I’m saying. And the insults are really unwarranted. Stop. Please just stop. But also, fuck you again.
No, they are spinning the news. A headline like that when the report goes into detail how damaging it was is deliberately misleading.
They are focussing on the fact that larger companies seem more resilient. That’s the one positive in the research. The rest is pretty brutal.
That’s like reporting a headline “Child escapes school shooting” and then mentioning the fact that five others died in the body of the text.
They are not “just reporting the news”.
It’s not misleading at all. The title says it wasn’t good for trade, albeit not as bad as expected.
I can appreciate that might be confusing for you though, some struggle with parsing information.
Yes, you are very smart.
I never claimed to be. But clearly I can understand the title and I understand that FT is reporting on a study that somebody else did.
It seems not everyone can work that out.
FT is just reporting the news. It’s unfortunate that the news offends you, but they’re not really obliged to put out news that tickles your schadenfreude.
Here’s the thing. You have twice insinuated I don’t understand the news, or how it works. , it demeans us both.
I feel insulted and you come across as a smug prick.
I was just saying that different papers spin the news differently. There are no papers in the UK that lack bias.
There is no such thing as “just reporting the news”. The very selection of what you report onis the news.
We could get into an academic debate, if you want. We could wheel out Sontag and Marshall McLuhan. We could go over all the basic first year undergraduate lessons in journalistic practice, or we could just drop this and move on.
I suspect you won’t be able to restrain yourself though. You’ll have to point out for a third time that you think some people are incapable of being able to understand things that you, yourself, seem to be the one struggling with.
I’m sorry this news upset you. But it is the news. Facts shouldn’t upset you so much. No wonder you seem pretty stupid if reading news articles and studies is an upsetting thing for you.
To answer all your points.
1.) It didn’t.
2.) Didn’t say it wasn’t.
3.) They don’t.
4.) Fuck you you arrogant prick. You are being willfully ignorant and deliberately misinterpreting what I’m saying. And the insults are really unwarranted. Stop. Please just stop. But also, fuck you again.