@philip_cardella@historians.social @hc_richardson
There's so much wrong with this article, but I think the introduction really sums it up:
"Two years ago today, rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol to stop the counting of electoral ballots that would put a Democrat in the White House. There was no doubt Joe Biden had won"
Right there is a factual contradiction thrown out as if the author just really doesn't care about the facts. No, Joe Biden obviously had not one because the electoral ballots had not been counted that would have constituted a win.
The first sentence indicates that Joe Biden had not won. The second sentence declares that he obviously had.
The rest of the article really flows in a similar pattern, ignoring facts and focusing on telling a sensational story, delving into conspiracy theories, and focusing on arriving at a conclusion no matter how poorly supported.
Yeah it explains something, and the same way that pre-scientific societies explained crop failures using magic.
Facts matter. We should have our ears more finely tuned to pick out the places where the facts just don't add up.
@volkris
Look im all for articles being objective and all.. but man you are **really** pushing it with this.. the article is written 2 years after, so there is, in fact, no doubt joe biden has won. There is also no doubt the capital was stormed... But that sounds like a really weird quote to focus on, if its the best example you have its pretty weak.
@philip_cardella@historians.social @hc_richardson