Looking for bias where none exists. Supreme Court coverage routinely refers to "narrow" or "broad" decisions based on the scope of the ruling not on the vote breakdown. All is made clear in the stories that are beneath the headlines if people can be bothered to read themhttps://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1003646907896430592 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @lawrencehurley @bradheath
Yes, correct. But a very small % of the population would be aware of that. If that is the only crowd you want to appeal to, then by all means. Keep treating the overwhelming majority of the population that reads 5-4 to be more narrow than 9-0 to be idiots.(it is btw)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
If my intended audience(my consumers) were misunderstanding what I meant, I would consider changing the message to be more clear. I certainly would see no need to berate my consumers for a reasonable misunderstanding of my message. But we all operate differently I suppose
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @StatandMelo1 @bradheath
Hmm so in what way would any of that “expose” so-called political bias?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lawrencehurley @bradheath
I would say I understand completely why you would think this bc your reading of narrow is reasonable. Then explain what I mean by it. Then in further communications try to change the message to avoid confusion. If interested in appealing to more consumers of course
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Final version of story is very different to original take:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/u-s-supreme-court-backs-christian-baker-who-rebuffed-gay-couple-idUSKCN1J01WU …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.