Now Pink News feels misunderstood.
Mind you, three hours ago it was still all about the “nothing happened and she asked for it.”
The other speaker with her said Julie Bindel was “not physically hurt.” https://t.co/TlEAfBp6Ka
— PinkNews (@PinkNews) June 7, 2019
But I guess the responses finally got through to them.
Today we published a story about Julie Bindel. We wanted to clear up some misconceptions:
PinkNews looked into an alleged attack on Bindel by a trans person. Bindel tweeted she was “physically attacked,” but later said she was not physically harmed.
— PinkNews (@PinkNews) June 7, 2019
Alleged, we tell you, ALLEGED. By a trans person. Not by an enraged shouting man, but by a trans person. She said she was physically attacked but not physically harmed ohmygod how can this possibly be it must be an evil terfy plot.
PinkNews wrote a factual article about the incident based on several sources. This has been misrepresented as defending the trans person involved in the incident. Needless to say, we don’t condone violence or threatening behaviour towards anyone. We merely relayed the facts.
— PinkNews (@PinkNews) June 7, 2019
It’s not needless to say at all. The emphasis, the word order, the vocabulary, all of it was shaped to convey hostile incredulity toward Julie’s account and sympathy for the angry shouting man who charged at her.
What a pack of cowardly liars.
Comments
6 responses to “They merely relayed the facts”
Pants on fire lie.
Notice the “but” there. It’s meant to imply that Bindel wasn’t attacked, because she wasn’t physically harmed.
“Attacks” aren’t always successful. They are nevertheless still ATTACKS.
Among the online dictionary’s definitions of the word “attack”:
Emphasis added.
It’s weird, isn’t it? They seem to think they’ve found a gotcha moment, a contradiction in the story. “You allege that you were attacked… but how do you explain your lack of injury??” DUN DUN
Just another tool in their arsenal against women guilty of wrongthought.
No, she didn’t say that PinkNews’ inquiries called her a liar, that doesn’t even make sense. She said that the article did that. And it did, by the use of tone, selective focus enlarging her wrongthought, and selective scepticism / acceptance of claims.
It’s weird, isn’t it? They seem to think they’ve found a gotcha moment, a contradiction in the story. “You allege that you were attacked… but how do you explain your lack of injury??” DUN DUN
Just another tool in their arsenal against women guilty of wrongthought.
No, she didn’t say that PinkNews’ inquiries called her a liar, that doesn’t even make sense. She said that the article did that. And it did, by the use of tone, selective focus enlarging her wrongthought, and selective scepticism / acceptance of claims.
…what?? the previewed draft was also posted?
Holms, I think the computer is having some sort of double-down day. It submitted my prescription request twice, giving the pharmacist a headache in the confusion. It’s twice as nice day?
Just leave out the ‘violently attacked’ part of the witness’ statement…