• silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    It’s not a direct impact; it’s that the ad buys get the oil folks access in a way that you and I don’t have. The journalists end up at things like conference panels with oil folks, and not so much with activists or scientists, and the editors choose who to put on a given story.

    • jeffw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 days ago

      Oh, so the journalists are too stupid to think for themselves because they went to a sponsored conference?

      Would you be brainwashed by a single conference?

      • underwire212@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Why are you arguing in bad faith? That’s obviously not what they meant.

        Your opinions and thoughts are shaped by the totality of your experiences. That single conference is just one example. And journalists are not super human- they are human just like me and you; subject to influence and sometimes yielding to “status quo” industry norms.

          • underwire212@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            You’re not attempting to try and understand what the other commenter is trying to communicate, instead making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. That is the definition of arguing in bad faith.

            Also, what do you mean by woosh? Were you joking or something? I am not familiar with this term if it’s supposed to mean something.