Not giving a fuck about actual people. Out in broad daylight too.
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
17 points (94.7% liked)
NZ Politics
562 readers
1 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My, what an unbiased headline and article. 🙄
In what way is the article biased? Can you point out inaccuracies or invalid conclusions in it?
Do you really need me to explain how "in the shadows" in the headline could possibly be a tad biased?
That's up to you, but since I asked about the article can I assume you haven't read it and just assumed it's inaccurate in a knee-jerk reaction based on the title?
can I assume
I'm not going to stop you.
So what is the point of going "so biased" and dismissing the article if you haven't read it? If you want to add meaningful discussion about the article, why not point out what's wrong with it, instead of flippantly dismissing it? It makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
I did actually skim through it, it was pretty light on detail. About what you'd expect from a headline like that.
I disagree. It specifically outlines the changes National and Act are likely to, or have confirmed they will, bring about regarding water regulations, and how it will remove many protections that are currently in place.
It also explains the "in the shadows" point by pointing out how the indicated changes are buried deep in agricultural documents from the Nats.
Seems like the title, and the article, are as accurate as expected from an Op Ed.
Perhaps it would help if you read the article and argue it's points, rather than jerking that knee?