But, now with extra Red 40!
Wouldn't be surprised if Kellogg's used a defense premised on people's low expectations of processed foods. Similar to how FoxNews hosts use defenses along the lines of "people know we don't tell the truth".
Wouldn't be surprised if Kellogg's used a defense premised on people's low expectations of processed foods. Similar to how FoxNews hosts use defenses along the lines of "people know we don't tell the truth".
The number and of strawberries going into a pastry is a lot easier to measure as a fact, and advertising that makes claims about strawberry content in the course of trade is not so protected.
Yeah that's not this. I'm referring to people like Tucker Carlson who--in order to defend himself against charges of slander--essentially used the defense that he's known to lie/exaggerate, thus people know not to believe him.[0]
Would be akin to Kellogg's defending with, "people know processed foods are garbage".
[0] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-...
Edit: Here's the ad I had in mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlqFplfTojA
And here's an article form the case they presented the defense that no one would think it's healthy: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-dark-side-of-vitaminw_b_6...
- https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-was...
We don't have to get started on the effect putting two private organizations in charge of all high-level narrative since the 70s has done, but I fail to see how any of that excuses deceptively rigging a primary.
The same year saw the GOP hold a similar dislike for a particular candidate, with different results. Trump won, but the RNC certainly tried their best to prevent it for a while. No party primary in history is likely to have been entirely fair or impartial.
EDIT: I want to clarify my response here. There's a trend within technology to discount anything that's based on social rather than some sort of more directly measurable outcome. In this case, the implication that there should be "rules" that are clear and followed to the letter, and absolutely nothing should happen outside of them.
Guess what! We live in a society, and anything involving more than one person also involves "politics". Social currency is as important, and one should pay attention to it. Otherwise one will consistently find that, no matter how good their technical justifications, they just get steamrolled by people who are both technically-correct enough AND socially juiced.
Selling pop tarts to everyone claiming something is in it that provides health benefits when it is hardly there is a different thing.
The DNC is allowed to be deceptive, if they want. There's no legal basis for "the primaries have to be fair". The party is permitted to express a preference; they get to choose a platform, rules for the convention, how many debates to have, etc. They can favor a specific candidate, they can expel you from the party, they can do all sorts of things to move the scale.
There's no legal basis for "strawberry Pop-Tarts need more than 2% strawberry". The company is permitted to use cancerous dyes and cheap ingredients, market the shit as wholegrain or whatever, etc.
The more I think about this, the more uncanny how similar our politics is to Pop-Tarts. They've no value or benefit to anyone but shareholders; they're marketed as responsible and balanced despite literally causing cancer; there's a few different flavours but the flavour is a meaningless deception dyed either red or blue.
A party running their own primaries is not at all like selling pop tarts.
1. It is standard practice at dismissal phase to proceed is if the plaintiff’s claims were correct.
2. The case was dismissed because political rhetoric is not enforceable in court.