The article seems highly editorial; it focuses on emotional trigger words and phrases rather than factual information.
Looking at the language: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is folding to woke Disney, pushing a bill in the state legislature to quietly restore their special tax breaks after posturing publicly against the megacorp.
DeSantis is making the capitulation even as he and RINO Republican leaders in the state claim that they are punishing Disney – the exact opposite of what is happening.
These are all trigger words. The fact that they trigger patriots and/or anons doesn't change that fact that it's trigger language.
DeSantis is using sleight of hand to claim he is cracking down on Disney when he is really giving them what they want and enabling Disney’s campaign contributions to fill Republican coffers in the years to come.
This is editorializing. Is it factual? Does it present the objective facts that allow us to think for ourselves and make up our own minds?
(Right or wrong, we should resist being manipulated by ANYONE who publishes information. We do this by applying due diligence and working (reviewing analyzing) the information instead of just reacting or taking it at face value.)
The article relies heavily on analysis by certain sources. "the analysis of DeSantis’ measure states."
The FIRST reference is from a tweet by a journalist for USAToday. "Statewide government accountability reporter for @USAToday Network"
The SECOND reference is an "investigative reporter" who appears to be staunchly anti-DeSantis from a while back. Is he unbiased? Or is this biased reporting? Worth asking this question, imo.
The analyses that the article relies on don't seem completely unbiased or balanced. They may be right, but I'd rather review that for myself than just take Big League Politics word for it.
It feels like there are a LOT of assertion and claims but limited facts. Did DeSantis ever claim the things that the article claims? Did he "restore' tax breaks, or has he simply not removed them, yet? Wasn't the key push to remove Disney from its OWN self-governing control and put that control into the hands of the Florida government, so that it complies with state law?
I'm just a bit wary of articles that are so long on editorializing and using emotive phraseology, but short on providing objective facts I can analyse.
I'm not saying the article is incorrect or that Ron DeSantis isn't a fake conservative. I'm just wary of being herded into a particular viewpoint, regardless of who is doing it.
I don't see too much problem with posting this sort of article, except that we should be discriminating when relaying information. It takes a while to get used to doing this. We've been trained for decades to simply accept and absorb information and 'reports' that fit with the world picture we've been fed.
Even when we break away from the big corporate propaganda media and their narratives, we are often still running the same behavior but just now with a different narrative; Patriotism good, corporations and govt controlled, corruption in institutions all around, etc.
It's the WAY we engage with information that needs to change, not just WHAT information we're focusing on.
Trying to work the information here:
Looking at the language: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is folding to woke Disney, pushing a bill in the state legislature to quietly restore their special tax breaks after posturing publicly against the megacorp.
DeSantis is making the capitulation even as he and RINO Republican leaders in the state claim that they are punishing Disney – the exact opposite of what is happening.
These are all trigger words. The fact that they trigger patriots and/or anons doesn't change that fact that it's trigger language.
DeSantis is using sleight of hand to claim he is cracking down on Disney when he is really giving them what they want and enabling Disney’s campaign contributions to fill Republican coffers in the years to come.
This is editorializing. Is it factual? Does it present the objective facts that allow us to think for ourselves and make up our own minds?
(Right or wrong, we should resist being manipulated by ANYONE who publishes information. We do this by applying due diligence and working (reviewing analyzing) the information instead of just reacting or taking it at face value.)
The FIRST reference is from a tweet by a journalist for USAToday. "Statewide government accountability reporter for @USAToday Network"
https://twitter.com/DouglasSoule/status/1623709450744827904
The SECOND reference is an "investigative reporter" who appears to be staunchly anti-DeSantis from a while back. Is he unbiased? Or is this biased reporting? Worth asking this question, imo.
https://twitter.com/Jason_Garcia
Here is his substack. Look through the articles, and think about what they say about this person's political orientation, etc.
https://jasongarcia.substack.com/archive?sort=new
The analyses that the article relies on don't seem completely unbiased or balanced. They may be right, but I'd rather review that for myself than just take Big League Politics word for it.
I'm just a bit wary of articles that are so long on editorializing and using emotive phraseology, but short on providing objective facts I can analyse.
I'm not saying the article is incorrect or that Ron DeSantis isn't a fake conservative. I'm just wary of being herded into a particular viewpoint, regardless of who is doing it.
I don't see too much problem with posting this sort of article, except that we should be discriminating when relaying information. It takes a while to get used to doing this. We've been trained for decades to simply accept and absorb information and 'reports' that fit with the world picture we've been fed.
Even when we break away from the big corporate propaganda media and their narratives, we are often still running the same behavior but just now with a different narrative; Patriotism good, corporations and govt controlled, corruption in institutions all around, etc.
It's the WAY we engage with information that needs to change, not just WHAT information we're focusing on.