• audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    1913·
    2 months ago

    It can both be reporting the facts and be rage bait. A headline that said “Trump Bible only contains the Bill of Rights and not the rest of the Constitution” would also be factual, but it doesn’t push the narrative that Trump is anti-black and anti-woman.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think Trump is absolutely anti-black and anti-woman, but the headline is absolutely ragebait. It is selective to get people to click it.

      • audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        93·
        2 months ago

        I’m not disagreeing with you about it being incorrectly advertised. I’m saying the headline is written to imply that the bible specifically excludes only the amendments that apply to slavery and women. That is not the case. In fact, the only place in the article that mentions that exact fact is the headline. So while it is technically true to say that it excludes those amendments, it is, at best, misleading. Why not say it “excludes amendment to handle the death of a president”? That is also technically true.

        So what I’m saying is: you’re engaging in Lemmy’s second past time, bashing someone for calling out something that’s misleading because the implication fits your narrative.

    • AmidFuror@fedia.io
      98·
      2 months ago

      You’re absolutely right. If it skipped those amendments specifically, which is what the headline implies, it would be a very different story.