His analogy was perfect - he was discussing the headlines that contradict what is actually happening in the Chauvin case, and in many instances, explicitly contradict the story they are attached to.
If the person only "heard" (read) the "commentary" (headlines) and didn't have other information to go by, they would be convinced that the outcome is unexpected when the fight result is announced.
Actually, u/sickofaltspin is correct. I did watch this stream. Pool was upset that he clicked a headline and when he opened the article it was a complete different story. That would be incredibly upsetting if you shared something that stated one story in the headline and then when your friend opens it up, it's diametrically opposed.
It's really not right the state of lies in media. There is no journalism, just propaganda. Scary times indeed.
It would be a better analogy if the audience was WATCHING the fight and SAW fighter A land more punches, and then the fight was ruled for fighter B.
His analogy was perfect - he was discussing the headlines that contradict what is actually happening in the Chauvin case, and in many instances, explicitly contradict the story they are attached to.
If the person only "heard" (read) the "commentary" (headlines) and didn't have other information to go by, they would be convinced that the outcome is unexpected when the fight result is announced.
I guess it also depends whether you think he’s talking about the Chauvin trial or the November election 🤷🏻♀️
Actually, u/sickofaltspin is correct. I did watch this stream. Pool was upset that he clicked a headline and when he opened the article it was a complete different story. That would be incredibly upsetting if you shared something that stated one story in the headline and then when your friend opens it up, it's diametrically opposed.
It's really not right the state of lies in media. There is no journalism, just propaganda. Scary times indeed.