Hacker News Reader

Comment by Guthur | Hacker News Reader

This article, per usual, is creating a completely false narrative. Just by opposing a particular bill that is ostensibly aimed at controlling the climate does not mean you are opposed to all actions aligned with that bills outward goals.

View on HN

Not just that, but the article doesn't even mention until halfway in that this bill is a 3.5TN budget bill, very much full of other non-climate proposals. Most people will read and comment on the title.

This has to be one of the most reprehensible pieces of flat-out propaganda I’ve seen from The Guardian.

Literally in the second paragraph:

> oppose the proposed $3.5tn budget bill put forward by Democrats

That makes it pretty clear to me that it's a $3.5TN budget bill. Also, that sentence is a link, so it's underlined. Difficult to miss.

I think the key part of the parent post is "very much full of other non-climate proposals", not the 3.5 number.

The title of the piece leaves little room for nuance.

This is unfortunately the most common form of intellectual dishonesty in newspapers. I would be curious to know the actual stats of what % of visitors read the headline, the subheadline, first paragraph, and last paragraph. I would bet something like 100%, 60%, 30%, 5%. So the favorite way for journalists to lie is to bury deep in the article the facts that contradict or mitigate the headline, so the article technically has the facts somewhere, but the vast majority of readers will be misled nevertheless.

"We're not in principle against stopping climate change, we're just against every specific measure proposed to counter climate change."

Sorry, I'm really tired of hearing these arguments.

I have an alternative $3.5 trillion climate bill. It's to spend $2.5 trillion dollars on purchasing carbon credits and spend $1 trillion as a paycheck for me for coming up with this brilliant bill. Don't agree? I guess you're just against saving the planet.

In all seriousness, I think that some of the proposals are even more handwavy about how they would decrease emissions than carbon credits. I also wouldn't be surprised if essentially $1 trillion will be spent pandering to the politicians' base rather than doing good for the nation. It's not too different from spending the money on yourself.

If you're tired of hearing these arguments, you may wish to consider not making them to yourself and then putting quotes around them as if someone else said them.

I am pretty sure that in US usual fashion, the bill include other kind of amendment that have no relation with climate change and could have adverse effect on those company business, but yeah let's simplify narrative and say that these company are pro climate change.

I am far from being a FAANG cheerleader but I feel quite skeptical that it is as simple as the guardian is depicting it, if only because it is a britain based news outlet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com