The content, the name of the website, the logo they use — all make me initially trust them as my kind of people. I want to read this without questioning who the author is. It has the look and feel of something I might align with, instinctively.
Alas, this is a dangerous thing in the world of bogus news.
The author and his editors then refer to Founder Fathers (not Founding) and “tying” police powers (instead of “tying the hands of the police” or “curtailing the powers of the police”.) People learning English as a second language are, of course, allowed to make mistakes, but written journalism about US public policy isn’t. That’s the point where one stops and does due diligence on who these people are. This is hard, because the The Gradient’s team don’t really introduce themselves very clearly.
It would be great to have just a little bit more information about what this site is before delving into this article more. The about page suggests it’s a student/college magazine:
Somewhere between the end of the article and the bottom of the page is a mini bio on the author. They work in policy / politics, including working in DC. They also have a public bio on LinkedIn with more details.
I don’t mean to cast unfair aspersions, but am I reading a nudge piece from a lobbying think tank?
I feel guilty for even asking. How did the internet make me so skeptical?
I’m fine with think tank nudge pieces as long as they aren’t pretending to be news editorial.
On today’s internet, there is a strong requirement for being up front out one’s agenda otherwise how do we differentiate interesting opinion/blogging from the fake news bunkers?
In this case, a buried bio on a think piece I’ve never heard of wasn’t enough to suppress the “is this manipulative blogging dressed up to look like reputable journalism?” alarm bells.
(Even though, in fairness, this author does seem to be closer to the Bob Woodward end of the spectrum than the Ghanaian/Russian troll farm end.)
> And which kind of lobbying think tank is against giving more power to the police?
Any on the left in the US right now. Police enforcement has become a huge political issue for the November election. Anything to drive up more support for the notion that LE is corrupt/fundamentally broken is good for those aligned with a D sweep. This is not cynical, it’s just how the game is played in the lobbying/“think tank” world.
The content, the name of the website, the logo they use — all make me initially trust them as my kind of people. I want to read this without questioning who the author is. It has the look and feel of something I might align with, instinctively.
Alas, this is a dangerous thing in the world of bogus news.
The author and his editors then refer to Founder Fathers (not Founding) and “tying” police powers (instead of “tying the hands of the police” or “curtailing the powers of the police”.) People learning English as a second language are, of course, allowed to make mistakes, but written journalism about US public policy isn’t. That’s the point where one stops and does due diligence on who these people are. This is hard, because the The Gradient’s team don’t really introduce themselves very clearly.
It would be great to have just a little bit more information about what this site is before delving into this article more. The about page suggests it’s a student/college magazine:
https://thegradient.pub/about/
Somewhere between the end of the article and the bottom of the page is a mini bio on the author. They work in policy / politics, including working in DC. They also have a public bio on LinkedIn with more details. I don’t mean to cast unfair aspersions, but am I reading a nudge piece from a lobbying think tank?
I feel guilty for even asking. How did the internet make me so skeptical?