Sharing Options
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
Seems a possibly curious play. I’m NEVER going to click on a Fox headline. So I might go away with a less favourable impression of Tammy D because I’m NEVER going to read the story – because why pollute my eyeballs with Fox Sh!t ? But that’s only if the article itself doesn’t explain the context (I’m assuming it doesn’t but I’ll never find out directly). So if the article IS balanced it could leave LESS of a biased impression if I read it, than if I don’t. This would seem to aim to “neg” regardless of the readership of the story itself. Top effort to Tim F (I’m assuming you took the pollution Sh!t Hit for us) – but I’ll never be able to confirm for myself because I don’t want any part of me immersed in any Toxic Sludge curated by the Murdock machine