I see the London Free Press also used "so-called", they also labelled an anti-lockdown pastor as "controversial", no explanation as to why: https://archive.is/trd4Z
Eating lunch in an Aylmer restaurant, reporter Dale Carruthers was confronted by a man who said LFP’s coverage of today’s dueling protests has been “one-sided.” Pressed to offer a specific example, he can’t and the restaurant’s owner intervened
They call it "controversial" if THEY themselves dont like it. Its not just this instance, i've seen a lot of cases where something is not controversial at all and no one cared about it, but just cause the "so-called journalists" didn't like it they called it "controversial" when it wasn't.
The "Adj.-Profession-Name" Formula, Disagreeables, & the "No-Living-Heroes" thy.
These adjectives are really reserved terms and the 'tells' of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns. So what's wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a "controversial professor" you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds clientside architecture in your own mind that you don't notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached. Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase "controversial professor Paul Krugman" to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor. So...how can that be?
Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick. The point is that real humans don’t talk like this.
I just want to point out that Paul Krugman used to be the RBG of the mainstream economic world, but even he isn't a fan of MMT which means he is a right-wing Nazi now. ??
I see the London Free Press also used "so-called", they also labelled an anti-lockdown pastor as "controversial", no explanation as to why: https://archive.is/trd4Z
We have plenty after this article, bub.
They call it "controversial" if THEY themselves dont like it. Its not just this instance, i've seen a lot of cases where something is not controversial at all and no one cared about it, but just cause the "so-called journalists" didn't like it they called it "controversial" when it wasn't.
Eric Weinstein had a great thread about it, I posted it on one of the old Reddit KiAs back in the day: https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/955117591378329606?lang=en
https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/955124432543993856
He goes on, it's a good read.
I just want to point out that Paul Krugman used to be the RBG of the mainstream economic world, but even he isn't a fan of MMT which means he is a right-wing Nazi now. ??
Didn't bother searching to see if they ever wrote "so-called Black Lives Matter protest" because we all know the answer.
"so-called journalists" are always at this shit.
lol check out this biased bullshit headline from The Guardian as well. https://archive.is/S15Vx
I guess I'm probably not in the majority of people referring to it as "Black National Socialist Lynchings"