221 () posted 3 years ago by Equityopinion 3 years ago by Equityopinion +225 / -4 49 comments share 49 comments share save hide report block hide replies
Except it's quite literally an 'inversion'
2 - 3 - 3
3 - 2 - 3
It's not like it's taking different numbers, it's using the "same" numbers
I agree that it's still baseless, but I do find it odd that these articles are reflecting the same number.
Either could be relevant to this example, or just another example of the media blatantly lying about everything and not bothering to change headlines.