More on TR’s bias toward the fascist ‘Gatecrash Water Festival’ initiative
More on TR’s bias toward the fascist ‘Gatecrash Water Festival’ initiative
For all those whom might be inclined to believe that Temasek Review is unbiased and non-fascist on the basis of their publishing a2ed’s ‘Support (Bukit Batok) Water Festival’, well, one just has to look at the write-up and facebook screenshot that accompanied and served to support Aurora Long’s fascist ‘Gatecrash Water Festival’ initiative. I
The GWF initiative was also filed under ‘headlines’ whilst the SWF initiative was filed under ‘letters’ and no write-up or screenshot accompanied it. There is no reason why the SWF initiative could not have been filed under ‘headlines’ or accompanied by a supportive write-up and screenshot. It is in such differences that varying distinctions are accorded varying stances despite their being granted visibility. This is how agendas are set, and information variably presented for an intended effect, and by which public opinion is manipulated, along with the transmission of the perspective of the media source.
I’ll leave it to the reader to judge, on the basis of this evidence.
a2ed
For all those whom might be inclined to believe that Temasek Review is unbiased and non-fascist on the basis of their publishing a2ed’s ‘Support (Bukit Batok) Water Festival’, well, one just has to look at the write-up and facebook screenshot that accompanied and served to support Aurora Long’s fascist ‘Gatecrash Water Festival’ initiative. I
The GWF initiative was also filed under ‘headlines’ whilst the SWF initiative was filed under ‘letters’ and no write-up or screenshot accompanied it. There is no reason why the SWF initiative could not have been filed under ‘headlines’ or accompanied by a supportive write-up and screenshot. It is in such differences that varying distinctions are accorded varying stances despite their being granted visibility. This is how agendas are set, and information variably presented for an intended effect, and by which public opinion is manipulated, along with the transmission of the perspective of the media source.
I’ll leave it to the reader to judge, on the basis of this evidence.
a2ed
Comments
Post a Comment
The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.
Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.