• favoredponcho@lemmy.zipOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    You’re missing the point entirely, probably because you don’t have the context. The NY Times worked with a Heritage Foundation political operative that founded the Ladies for Kavanaugh political group to accuse him of “abuse,” which they were not able to substantiate. It’s politically motivated because the NY Times, although liberal, is a Zionist paper that would rather have a pro-Israel Republican in the Senate than a Democrat who calls the events in Gaza a genocide.

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      I mean it explains why this headline is attempting to defend him, but the headline is still stupid. It should just read “The Attacks on Graham Platner Are Unsubstantiated”

      • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        But that is burying the lead again. Are the attacks unsubstantiated because legitimate victims simply cannot prove definitively that they were assaulted or put in a position of discomfort, or are the attacks unsubstantiated because they were made by a clearly partisan political actor? If you really don’t want to use the words “politically motivated”, you’d have to add to your headline that they were made by a pro-Israel, Ladies-for-Kavanaugh founder in order to accurately portray these attacks.